Jim Shannon

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) on setting the scene so very well. I believe that we sit at the crossroads of cutting-edge technology and the legal frameworks that govern creativity with the different ways in which artificial intelligence impacts on intellectual property rights. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can boast a historically strong and thriving culture of creativity across a very broad spectrum of the arts, science and technology. It is very important that we consider this issue. Advancements in AI raise important questions about the protection of intellectual property, because who owns the output of an AI system? Is it the user, the developer, or the AI proprietor? Such questions inspire debate in boardrooms, courtrooms and centres of policymaking across the United Kingdom. In 2020, a UK-based artist used an AI tool to create a series of digital paintings that drew significant attention at a London gallery. The question that arose was this: who owns the copyright? The artist who used the AI technology, the developer of the AI system, or no one at all? The current law, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, states: “In the case of a…work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” The problem with that, of course, is that it was written decades ago, before such technology as AI was even thought about. The challenge is when we address the nuances of today’s AI systems, where creativity is often a joint effort of human input and machine output. The outcome of the consultation is important, because it will shape the creative industries for years to come. As the UK is a global hub for technology and law, with institutions such as the Intellectual Property Office and a thriving creative economy, it can set the precedent for how AI and intellectual property can co-exist. I believe that the first step must be legal clarity; we should revisit the 1988 Act specifically to address AI-generated works and conventions by creating a new category that pertains to AI-assisted intellectual property, with its own rules, including on ownership. We should also invest in education to empower creators and businesses to navigate the evolving intellectual property landscape. Finally, we need to balance innovation with fairness. As AI reshapes the landscape, we must ensure that the benefits of AI-driven innovation are shared in a way that is equitable and that does not place a monopoly of power in the hands of an elite few or restrict raw human integrity. We should embrace this moment as an opportunity to redefine intellectual property for the age of AI and a future where technology and human enterprise work hand in hand to create a more resourceful and ambitious society. The time to start doing that is this day and in this debate.