A continuaciónSiguiente guía
UK Copyright for Computer-Generated Works (Section 9(3))
sociedad
GUÍA de sociedad
UK copyright law has a specific text-and-data-mining exception for non-commercial research with lawful access, not a general commercial AI-training exception.
In March 2026 the government said a broad opt-out exception was no longer its preferred policy and proposed more evidence gathering rather than enacting that reform.
Text and data mining (TDM) uses automated analysis to find patterns in text or data, and often requires copies. Section 29A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 permits copies for computational analysis where the sole purpose is non-commercial research and the researcher already has lawful access. Sufficient acknowledgement is required unless impractical. Contract terms preventing qualifying copies are unenforceable, while providers may take reasonable measures to protect network security or stability. This narrow exception is not a blanket route for commercial model training. If a TDM purpose is commercial, section 29A does not itself authorize the copying; permission or another applicable legal basis may be needed. It is also too broad to claim every commercial training use necessarily infringes: the work, acts, permissions, other exceptions and facts matter, and cross-border activity raises territorial questions. The government’s report of 18 March 2026 reviewed policy options from its 2024 consultation. It said opposition, evidence gaps and a changing market meant the broad copyright exception with opt-out was no longer its preferred way forward. Instead, government proposed gathering further evidence and considering alternative interventions. This report states policy direction; it did not enact a new TDM exception. Current analysis therefore starts with existing copyright law, permissions and case-specific legal questions while courts and parties resolve disputes. Organisations should avoid substituting policy announcements for enacted rules.
Los daños catastróficos y cotidianos de la IA dependen de quién comprende los riesgos y quién puede actuar.
La alfabetización pública y profesional determina si es políticamente posible una política de seguridad sólida.
Las explicaciones claras reducen la captación por la exageración, las relaciones públicas de laboratorio y el vago teatro de ética.
Government has shifted from its earlier consultation-stage support for a broad opt-out route toward further evidence gathering and alternative approaches. Timing and substance of future legislation remain uncertain. Licensing, court decisions and overseas policy may affect practice, so developers should maintain traceable datasets and revisit assessments. Review this position if Parliament enacts new rules; until then, keep section 29A, licensing and other exceptions distinct. Preserve dated copies of the report and licences relied upon. Monitor court decisions and enacted amendments, not announcements alone.
A university researcher with lawful access copies journal works for non-commercial computational analysis and acknowledges sources where required.
A business training a commercial model on protected works does not assume section 29A applies because the activity is called text mining.
A rights holder and developer agree a licence defining training, attribution, security and downstream use.
A team checks whether a work is public domain, licensed, or covered by another exception before copying it.
Tratar el riesgo existencial como ciencia ficción mientras que la capacidad se agrava.
Confundir la seguridad del producto superficial con la alineación en condiciones de alta autonomía.
Dejando a las audiencias que no hablan inglés ni a expertos solo con fuentes de baja calidad.
Separe los riesgos de daños al producto, mal uso y pérdida de control/desalineación.
Pregunte qué evidencia cambiaría su opinión sobre los plazos y la gravedad.
Prefiera fuentes primarias y evaluaciones concretas a afirmaciones de marketing.
Identifique un camino de acción: carrera, política, financiamiento o habilidades, no solo concientización.
Free newsletter
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
UK copyright law has a specific text-and-data-mining exception for non-commercial research with lawful access, not a general commercial AI-training exception. In March 2026 the government said a broad opt-out exception was no longer its preferred policy and proposed more evidence gathering rather than enacting that reform.
Section 29A covers copies for non-commercial research when the user already has lawful access.
The exception exists, but its stated scope is non-commercial research.
The exception does not grant a right to obtain the work; lawful access is required.
The report moved away from that approach and proposed collecting more evidence.
A report describing proposals does not itself amend copyright legislation.
sigue aprendiendo
Más guías seleccionadas para este tema.
A continuaciónSiguiente guía
UK Copyright for Computer-Generated Works (Section 9(3))
sociedad