Hey guys, Andy here. It has become increasingly hard to ignore the term AI; it was UK headlines news this week and I feel 2025 will be important in regards to online content, content creation and creative rights for a number of reasons.

This week the UK government announced a big AI push to ensure the UK is able to produce its own AI models with their plan recommending a 20- fold increase in the amount of AI computing power under public control by 2030. Boosting and promoting home grown talent is admirable but I worry, when it comes to tech, faith is often blind and can lead to significant unintended consequences; the industry often invents and takes action because it can rather than because it should.

The three key components behind AI are people, computation and data. Companies are willing to spend, often vast sums, on the first two (such as up to a billion dollars per AI model). However the same can not be said about the data; they are, by and large, taking it for free. To be clear data is how AI is trained and this ‘training data’ is being scrapped off the internet without any compensation to the artists, the musicians, or the authors who created it. In the USA, AI firms are claiming taking copyrighted content without a licence constitutes ‘fair use’ and permission from the copyright owner is not needed. The UK is set to legislate on AI later this year in regards to copyright with the current plan recommending an opt out process.

Current UK copyright law gives legal protection against someone’s work being used without permission. An opt out exemption would mean all content could be used to train AI, without permission or payment, unless the creator declines the use of their content. On paper this sounds simple enough however in practice it is highly damaging. While some creators may agree to their works being used for free to train AI, opt out places the cost and administrative burden on creators and not the companies using the works. And this is based on the assumption that Ai companies are transparent in their dealings.

The Polish artist Greg Rutkowski is a cautionary tale; his work was included in training data and his name used as a prompt, for those wishing to emulate his style, 400,000 times in under a year starting in Sept 2022. After he successfully had his works removed from the training data to ensure the AI generator would not offer works in his style, a digital model designed to emulate his style was specifically created and made freely available. Both those behind and also supporting this digital model cited in their defence that Rutkowski’s art had already been in circulation in for years.

My photography journey started in editorial and magazines, however titles have been decimated by social media, the internet and cameras in smart phones. Thusly I have had to turn to online to generate the exposure I used to get via print. Having initially welcomed social media, over the past few years I have found myself receding further and further from it as platforms have become dumpster fires of misinformation, abuse and hatred which I do not want to be associated with. As such I have invested time in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) to promote myself and my work. SEO encourages the addition alt text which are descriptions of the photograph digitally attached to the image. However alt- text makes images easy for AI to scrape (Greg Rutkowski added alt text to his work). In trying to generate work today I am helping train AI, potentially, to replace my photographic offerings tomorrow.

Photography is not the only industry that is looking at AI with trepidation; the creative industries are a significant economic driver in the UK, adding over £126 billion to GDP. According to the latest CISAC report, the music industry alone is predicted to lose nearly 25% of its revenue to AI generated content within four years. If so, that is going to be a lot of people looking for new jobs. 

I dislike photography AI. Is it a threat to my being a portrait photographer; yes. I appreciate the logic of why hire me when you can create an AI generated headshot of yourself in a fraction of the time and effort. However my dislike is originates from the fact that I view AI content, where the content has been 100% generated by an AI, as fake and as disingenuous. I fail to see how anyone can position themselves as having values and being authentic if they use AI to represent themselves. I take a dim view of people who call themselves artists via generating content via AI. Where is the skill in typing in a text prompt to create content compared to painting, composing music or the playing of a guitar? The tech industry mantra of ‘move fast and break things’ is clearly doing just that. 

Why should I allow AI to learn from my work for free to be commercialised for someone else’s benefit? The logical solution would be to remove myself from the situation which would require removing my work from the internet to ensure it does not get scraped into AI training data. However if I remove my work from the internet, I severely limit lead generation to gain work. And if I am not working I am no longer a professional creative. And were I a amateur creative, would I be happy to gift my images to an AI company; no. This begs the question, why be a creative at all?

In an age of climate change, and especially looking at the wildfires causing havoc in California, spare a thought for the energy requirements for AI computing power and data centres. According to the International Energy Agency, total global electricity consumption from datacentres could reach the level of Japan’s energy intake by 2026 (Japan consumes approx double per capita than the UK).

If you agree with the thoughts and sentiments express above in regards to creative rights, please find a link to Creative Right in AI Coalition which includes a template to write to your local MP calling on them to safeguard creative rights in AI.