Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Outbyte PC Repair · freeRepair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.
Fix My PC Now →ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
The UK government has dropped a proposed AI-training copyright exception as its preferred policy, but it has not chosen a replacement. Announced on March 18, 2026, the change followed strong opposition from creative-sector respondents and concerns about whether an opt-out system could work. No new licensing-first rule or universal creator opt-out tool has been announced.
What the UK government actually abandoned
The government withdrew its support for Option 3, a proposed broad text-and-data-mining exception that would have covered commercial AI training. Under that model, developers could use lawfully accessed copyrighted works unless rights holders expressly reserved their rights, potentially through machine-readable signals. In practical terms, an illustrator’s work posted online could be collected for training unless the illustrator or platform successfully signalled that it was off limits.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11That is a change in preferred policy, not a final legal ban on the proposal. The government said it had “no preferred option” and would gather more evidence while considering alternatives. Its report cited creative-sector opposition, uncertainty over economic effects and technical opt-outs, changes in AI markets and international policy, and concerns from some developers about UK competitiveness. The government’s report and ministerial statement of March 18 set out the change.
Why creators objected to use-by-default
For many rights holders, the central problem was the burden of having to prevent use rather than grant permission first. A creator might need to learn how reservations work, apply them across sites and archives, and trust developers to detect and honour them. If a work had already been copied or used to train a model, a later reservation would not automatically undo that use.
#1 Best Overall
- Permission and payment: Creative-sector respondents feared works could be used without consent or remuneration, including to build competing AI products.
- Unequal capacity: A large publisher may be better placed than an individual painter, photographer, or writer to track uses and manage rights signals.
- Limited visibility: Without useful information about training materials, a creator may not know which developer used a work or where to seek a remedy.
- Weaker negotiating position: If access is permitted by default, licensing may become harder to insist on as the starting point.
The government described opposition as widespread across creative industries; that does not mean every artist or organisation held the same view. The dispute also included arguments from developers and researchers that exceptions could reduce transaction costs and support innovation. Those are competing policy claims, not established outcomes.
Named examples of sector concern included UK Music, the Musicians’ Union, the Society of Authors, and the News Media Association. UK Music’s consultation response is one direct industry submission; reporting also described reactions from artists and trade bodies. The Guardian’s account of reactions provides examples, but celebrity objections alone do not explain the government’s reversal.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What the consultation figures mean
The consultation ran from December 17, 2024, to February 25, 2025. In its progress report, the government recorded the following levels of support for the options:
Rank #2
| Option presented | Support among consultation respondents |
|---|---|
| No change to copyright law | 7% |
| Broad exception with an opt-out (Option 3) | 3% |
| Broad exception without rights reservation | 0.5% |
These are consultation-response figures, not a representative poll of the UK public. The government said it received more than 11,500 responses and noted that some were template responses. The percentages show the distribution of responses to the consultation options; the government’s separate qualitative assessment was that creative-sector opposition was strong. The progress report provides the figures and context.
Why an opt-out is technically difficult
A rights reservation is a legal or policy signal; it is not, by itself, a working guarantee that every copy of an artwork will be excluded. A system would have to specify which formats count, how developers detect them, and whether the signal stays attached as images or datasets are copied, transformed, or redistributed. It would also need answers for works hosted on platforms creators do not control and for conflicting or incomplete signals.
The lifecycle matters. A painting may be posted online, collected by a crawler, added to a dataset, and used in training before its creator discovers the use. A later reservation might guide future collection by a compliant developer, but it would not automatically delete earlier copies or reverse training. The government acknowledged uncertainty about whether technical measures could make the approach effective and noted that the EU’s comparable machine-readable reservation approach has not been applied consistently in practice. The consultation document discusses rights reservations and the practical questions around them.
Other difficult cases include a model trained outside the UK but made available to UK users, and a developer’s claim that it lawfully accessed a work despite disagreement over whether copying during training infringed copyright. A work may also involve several rights holders, so the person who posted it may not control every relevant right.
What the alternatives would mean
The government assessed four broad directions. Its impact assessment describes the options; none has been announced as the final replacement.
| Policy path | Basic effect | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Option 0: Keep current law | No new broad AI-training exception; existing copyright rules and exceptions continue to apply. | Avoids committing to a potentially flawed system, but leaves legal uncertainty and enforcement challenges in place. |
| Option 1: Require licensing | Strengthen the expectation that relevant copies made during AI development require permission or a licence. | Could preserve bargaining power and create routes to payment, but raises transaction costs and may advantage large rights holders or large developers. |
| Option 2: Broad exception, no opt-out | Permit AI-related text and data mining broadly without a rights-reservation mechanism. | May simplify access for developers, but offers rights holders still less control than an opt-out model. |
| Option 3: Broad exception with opt-out | Permit use by default while allowing rights holders to reserve their rights. | Could reduce licensing friction for developers, but depends on usable standards, discoverability, and compliance, while placing substantial work on creators. |
A licensing-first approach is not cost-free: it would require workable records, attribution, negotiation, and enforcement, and could be harder for small firms or researchers. Conversely, retaining current law avoids adopting a rushed system but leaves creators and developers without a settled answer to every question about training copies and model use.
Rank #4
What changes for painters and other rights holders now
The proposed new commercial training exception has not taken effect, but the government’s announcement does not create a universal licensing entitlement or automatically stop AI-related use of a particular work. Existing copyright law remains relevant, and its application to AI training continues to matter in disputes and licensing negotiations. There is no government opt-out portal identified in the announced programme.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesCopyright in an artwork is also distinct from issues involving a person’s face, voice, name, or identity. A digital replica may raise questions under other legal rights or contracts, not just copyright. The government has treated digital replicas as a separate policy workstream.
Why transparency is central to whatever comes next
Creators cannot meaningfully negotiate, reserve rights, or challenge a use if they cannot find out what was used and by whom. Transparency is therefore the bridge between formal rights and workable licensing: records of training materials could help identify relevant works, support negotiations, and make enforcement more practical. Broad dataset descriptions may not be enough for a rights holder who needs to locate a specific painting or photograph.
Best Value
On May 15, 2026, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee urged the government to avoid reforms that weaken incentives to license and called for robust transparency obligations for large AI developers. It also supported developing a licensing market. The committee’s response is a recommendation to government, not a rule already in force.
What happens next
In its March announcement, the government listed further evidence gathering and work on creator control, technical standards and best practice, digital replicas, AI-generated-content labelling, and support for smaller creative organisations. A June 29, 2026 update said that work remained in progress and did not announce a final replacement. The June parliamentary answer describes the continuing work programme.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The eventual framework could combine licensing, transparency duties, narrower exceptions, or voluntary standards; the government has not selected among those routes. The policy will also be shaped by international developments, including in the EU, United States, Australia, and India. The UK has not simply adopted the EU approach: the government said its practical effects and legal interpretation remain under assessment.
For creators, the unresolved test is whether a future system makes permission, payment, and meaningful control workable in practice—or leaves rights holders trying to discover and contest uses after their work has entered the AI pipeline.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
