À suivreGuide suivant
UK Copyright for Computer-Generated Works (Section 9(3))
Société
GUIDE DE LA SOCIÉTÉ
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.
Les dommages catastrophiques et quotidiens causés par l’IA dépendent tous deux de la personne qui comprend les risques et qui peut agir.
Les connaissances du public et des professionnels déterminent si une politique de sécurité forte est politiquement possible.
Des explications claires réduisent la capture par le battage médiatique, les relations publiques en laboratoire et le théâtre d'éthique vague.
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.
Traiter le risque existentiel comme de la science-fiction alors que les capacités s’accroissent.
Confondre sécurité des produits de surface et alignement sous haute autonomie.
Laisser le public non anglophone et non expert avec uniquement des sources de mauvaise qualité.
Séparez les dommages causés aux produits, leur mauvaise utilisation et les risques de perte de contrôle/désalignement.
Demandez quelles preuves pourraient changer votre point de vue sur les délais et la gravité.
Préférez les sources primaires et les évaluations concrètes aux allégations marketing.
Identifiez une voie d’action : carrière, politique, financement ou compétences – et pas seulement la sensibilisation.
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.
Continuez à apprendre
Plus de guides sélectionnés pour ce sujet
À suivreGuide suivant
UK Copyright for Computer-Generated Works (Section 9(3))
Société