AI & Copyright Roundtable – Key Reflections

Last Thursday, Simmons & Simmons was delighted to host Lord Holmes of Richmond MBE (who sits on the House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee) at our London office for a roundtable client event on AI & Copyright. Our discussion focused on the UK Government's March 2026 report on AI & copyright, after the Select Committee's own recent report on the same topic.

Lord Holmes emphasised that the UK was at a cross-roads, where two competing visions of the future were possible: one, where the UK could incentivise innovation and reap the benefits of AI, whilst protecting the creative industries; the other where the UK was at the mercy of developments in other markets. The Select Committee was critical of the Government's inaction and further delay in this area, which removed complete clarity on the way forward. That shared frustration foresaw further consultations, taskforces and working groups, effectively "kicking the can down the road". Government pointed to waiting for the outcome of various litigation, including the appeal in Getty Images v Stability AI before the English courts (due to be heard later this year).

Licensing sat at the heart of the discussion. Echoing the House of Lords' view that licensing is both realistic and essential, Lord Holmes explored what a scalable licensing market for AI training might look like in practice - including high‑volume vs work‑by‑work models, sector‑specific complexities, technical standards and industry‑led (including collective or quasi‑collective) solutions. At the same time, participants acknowledged that licensing does not offer a solution to "in the style of" products and content and discussed the Government's plans for a further consultation on digital replicas.

Finally, we turned to transparency, labelling and regulation. The discussion highlighted strong interest in clear labelling of AI‑generated content (and recognising human‑only works) to inform consumer decisions. Lord Holmes spoke of a disconnect between consumers and AI generated content and stressed that "we should enable people to understand what they are interacting with and to make informed choices". The roles of the CMA and ICO, and the appetite for a dedicated AI regulator in the UK (or lack thereof) was debated in the context of low public trust - with consensus that concrete and enforceable frameworks on licensing, transparency and labelling would be key to rebuilding confidence between creators, tech providers and the public. 

Joel Smith, IP Partner, commented: "the event highlighted the urgent need for clarity, certainty and direction in the way the UK approaches the rights of creators, whilst incentivising the rapid roll-out of AI in the UK."  Litigation remains a blunt tool. Recognition of a licensing-first approach, along with enforceable rules around transparency and labelling of output would go a long way to address the balance.

Reflecting on the discussion, Lord Holmes commented: "The UK has a real opportunity to succeed both with AI and to continue as a creative powerhouse.  This is dependent on resolving the ongoing and troubling lack of decision from Government when it comes to copyright.  Government must choose, must determine the path they want to take when it comes to AI and copyright. Persistent delay is more than unhelpful.  Whether creative or citizen, developer or deployer, innovator or investor, what we all need is clarity, consistency and a coherent approach. Sadly, the Government is still some way off this."

We are extremely grateful to Lord Holmes for sharing his insights and to our clients for attending and contributing to such a thought-provoking discussion.

If you have not read the House of Lords Select Committee Report, we commend you to read in full, but pages 73-78, provide an insightful and clear summary of their recommendations for the way forward for the Government.