In a bold statement against the UK government’s proposed approach to AI data mining copyrighted works, over 1000 UK artists have put their name to a silent album called ‘Is This What We Want?’. Spanning 47 minutes, the 12-track album symbolises the loss facing the UK arts sector should the government proceed with the ‘opt-out’ system it has declared to be the preferred solution.
The album features a wide range of artists, spanning various genres. Damon Albarn, Kate Bush, The Clash, Jamiroquai, Hans Zimmer, and The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra are amongst more than 1,000 artists who have released a silent album in protest of the British government’s proposed changes to AI copyright laws. All profits will be given to the charity Help Musicians. The full list is available here.
The track-listing for the record simply spells out the message: “The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies.” In 2023, the UK music contributed a record £7.6 billion to the economy.
The album features recordings of empty studios and performance spaces which showcases what the future could become for musicians in the UK if the changes go ahead.
In a statement released alongside the album, the purpose of the project was made explicit: “In late 2024, the UK government proposed changing copyright law to allow artificial intelligence companies to build their products using other people’s copyrighted work—music, artworks, text, and more—without a licence. The musicians on this album came together to protest this.”
The project was organised and put together by Ed Newton-Rex. Newton-Rex was formerly the lead of the audio team at Stability AI, resigning in November 2023 over the company’s stance that training AI models on copyrighted work fell under ‘fair use’. The following January, he launched Fairly Trained, an initiative that recognises and certifies AI companies that obtain consent to data mine protected works.
A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said in a statement: “The UK’s current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential – and that cannot continue. That’s why we have been consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive… No decisions have been taken, no moves will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives.”
The album comes just weeks before the end of the government’s consultation period on the issue. The government’s preferred approach is an ‘opt-out’ system, forcing artists to actively request for the removal of their work. Alternative proposals have been suggested, such as an opt-in, or a model which compensates the artists fairly for access to their work, as well as allowing them to profit from any projects which make use of their work.
The new plans fail to reimburse artists for AI recreating and copying their work, stifle creativity, and the proposed opt-out scheme places an unnecessary burden on artists, critics say. The petition was signed by Bush, Radiohead star Thom Yorke, ABBA’s Bjorn Ulvaeus and The Cure frontman Robert Smith.
Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney were also voices that spoke out against the law. During a recent interview on Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, the former Beatles member said: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off … We’re the people, you’re the government! You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job. So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”
Response to the album online has been overwhelmingly positive. Yusuf/Cat Stevens shared the project on his X account, seemingly bringing the issue to a new audience. One user commented under the musician’s post, saying, “AI should be banned from harvesting the products of human creativity in the arts, music, writing, or painting. Limit it to diagnostics for science, tech, engineering, medicine, and housework. Free people to think and be paid for their creativity.”
AI should be banned from harvesting the products of human creativity in the arts, music, writing or painting.
Limit it to Diagnostics for Science tech, engineering , medicine, house work.
Free people to think and be paid for their creativity.
Grow the Arts economy don’t kill it.— Phil (@PhilipBagLowe) February 25, 2025
The debate is raging in other countries too. Two weeks ago, a judge in Delaware ruled in favour of a copyright holder against an AI company who claimed their practices were covered by ‘fair use’.
With only two weeks of the consultation period left, ‘Is This What We Want?’ represents the final push to influence those who can really make a difference. Whether the project will be able to change the minds of a seemingly entrenched government position is yet to be seen, though the UK creative sector isn’t going down without a fight.
This article was co-reported and co-written by Lewis Pinto and Marie Choquet
