The results of the nationwide consultation on AI and copyright conducted by the UK government clearly highlighted a gap between public opinion and the government’s policy proposal. Of more than 11,500 respondents, only 3% supported the opt-out model proposed by the government, making it evident that an overwhelming majority favors a different direction.
At the core of the government’s proposal is the idea that AI developers should, in principle, be allowed to use copyrighted works for training purposes by default, while rights holders must indicate their refusal through technical measures or similar means. While this approach is intended to accelerate the development of the AI industry, it also places additional burdens on rights holders. As a result, creators actively engaged in creative work expressed strong opposition, arguing that the proposal effectively tolerates the risk of copyright infringement.
In fact, 88% of respondents supported a system that would require licensing in all cases before AI systems are allowed to use copyrighted works. This figure suggests not merely the influence of industry lobbying, but a broad public sentiment that prior consent and appropriate remuneration are essential. The creative industries’ strong opposition to the government proposal aligns closely with this prevailing public perception.
On the other hand, the technology sector—particularly AI developers—has expressed support for the government’s proposal or for even broader exceptions. Given the reality that access to large volumes of data is a key source of competitiveness, this position is understandable to some extent. However, based on the consultation results, this logic has not achieved consensus across society as a whole.
It is also noteworthy that 7% of respondents argued that the current copyright law should be maintained. This indicates that, although a minority, there are voices opposed to reform itself, which can be interpreted as a call for caution against hasty institutional changes. In addition, the fact that the Intellectual Property Office assembled a task force of around 80 people to review all responses without using AI symbolizes the government’s cautious stance on this issue.
The government has stated that, under the Data (Use and Access) Act, it will publish a full report and an economic impact assessment by March 18, 2026. This progress statement can be seen as a preliminary step that makes visible the conflicts of interest and differences in values that exist within society.
What this consultation ultimately reveals is a reality in which people desire the advancement of AI, yet strongly resist growth that comes at the expense of creators’ rights and dignity. How the UK government reflects this public sentiment in its policy decisions may have significant implications for international debates on AI and copyright. To achieve sustainable coexistence between technology and culture, a more nuanced institutional design is required—one that goes beyond a simple binary choice.