Gill Hunt

What will a new Labour government mean for AI in the UK? Fortunately that issue was addressed at last night's talk by Bates Wells. The topic was 'Balancing responsibility and innovation - How can we develop and implement ethical AI?'. The stellar panel of Tim Clement-Jones, Dee Masters and Neil Ross was expertly steered by my former colleague Eleonor Duhs. Key takeways were: 1) Labour will put the current voluntary AI code onto a statutory setting 2) They have committed to create a Regulatory Innovation Office which will have the mandate to co-ordinate across regulators to remove duplication 3) Expect an AI Bill to be part of the Kings Speech but it's unlikely to be debated until the second year of Parliament 4) There's been a huge turnover of the old guard and a new intake of young, digital savvy MPs.

19

1 Comment

If you work in IP, are interested in EDI and are UK based this IP Inclusive hybrid event on 23 April 2024 (4 for 4:30pm) sounds like it's one not to miss. With the title "Help! How do I start a conversation on EDI" I imagine the panel are going to have a lot to talk about. There are representatives on the panel from many of the IP Inclusive communities, including the one I've been on the committee for for a long time - #WomeninIP If you're within easy travelling distance of Cambridge then not only will you get to listen and learn in person, but also to have the benefits of in person networking. For others, like me, who are a bit too far away - we can still do the listening and learning online! Of course, if you have tips on the topic and want to get them out there just drop them in the comments here. https://lnkd.in/ea2TFF2X

7

2 Comments

The ICO's provisional fine of £6 million on a software provider is hugely significant for anyone negotiating IT service agreements. The ICO has generally focused its enforcement priorities on controllers. Despite having been officially regulated since 2018, processors have generally remained unscathed. However anyone involved in the contract negotiations knows that the risk of GDPR penalties usually looms large over both sides of the transaction. In this case, the IT provider worked for the NHS and other healthcare providers. The fine came about after it suffered a ransomware attack, and was found not have implemented MFA (that old chestnut again!). The findings are still only provisional (and we know from plenty of experience now that they can change radically before conclusion). Either way, however, it shows that processors must factor in their own direct regulatory exposure as well as exposure to their customers. #gdpr #databreach #processors

129

2 Comments

While an attempt to use WiFi on a train in the UK could easily lead one to conclude that high speed transmission of large quantities of data (or even just enough to send out an email - thanks GWR...) is virtually impossible, the reality is that our digital infrastructure runs very much on a physical backbone. Most people understand the concept of a data centers, and many are getting their heads around the power demands, but it is constant amazement to see how limited the understanding around the connectivity element has been. As such it is great to see the creeping increase in interest in this piece of the industry - such as this decent overview around some of the issues in Silicone Republic. The downside of wider understanding and coverage is also the increased scrutiny arising from security and geopolitical issues, which we all expect will simply increase the level of regulation and government interest. Given the move towards an even more digitally integrated economy, it becomes increasingly important that both operators and investors understand how each element works and their interdependence to understand both operational and future regulatory risk. #datacenters #digitalinfrastrucutre #fibreoptic #subseafibre

17

1 Comment

Sharing our article on the new consultation on the AI / text and data mining reforms to UK copyright. Worth a read and please get in touch if you want to talk about it further or contribute to a consultation response. From a games perspective, a few headline initial thoughts from me and Harry Clark: ⛏️ It's opt-out, not opt-in for rightsholders; so it may disproportionally affect smaller developers who are less well advised ⛏️ The tech standard for how rights reservation will work still not defined, but would encourage companies to review what their public facing terms say with respect to use of their content as a starting point ⛏️ Unlike certain other forms of traditional media and entertainment, video games comprise many different copyright works, which presents some practical challenges for the opt-outs that are not fully contemplated by the current proposals. ⛏️ As the exception would only apply if the AI tool has a lawful right of access, this creates some interesting options for whether games companies might amend their terms and introduce a charging model to permit this in some situations. ⛏️ As games is a tech industry as well as an entertainment industry and which uses AI tools itself, the possibility to broaden the legitimate use of AI tools creates some opportunities as well - and perhaps more than in more traditional creative industries. So some sort of balanced framework might ultimately be no bad thing for games overall - but only if the balance is right and the final proposals are workable and fair.

22

An interesting few weeks for #AI. We’ve obviously got the initial Feb 2025 deadlines under the EU AI Act which will be here before we all know it (and obviously, please do get in touch if we can help with that – we’ve some ‘OTC’ solutions for dealing with both AI literacy requirements and Prohibited Use assessments). But more generally: 1.     AI behavioural simulation at an individual level at scale is here – an AI agent has been trained to simulate 1,000 different people in common social science survey questions in a highly accurate way by the experts at Stanford, Northwestern, Washington etc:  https://lnkd.in/ewFMAQQs - those of us who have waxed lyrically for the last decade or so about monkey’s and photo ownership, rivers having rights and the concept of ‘peculium’ in Roman Law, are a step closer to the debate on legal personality in AI coming (back) to the forefront - as I send my 'agent' off to be an electronic version of me in a variety of settings. We're so far past the 'Black Mirror' comparisons in such a short space of time... 2.     The noise around AI’s impact on productiveness has, to quote Spinal Tap, been ‘turned up to 11’.  Much like the rocks of Stonehenge in the movie, many feel the actual thing delivered hasn’t as yet mirrored the noise. The Register had a good chat on this topic: https://lnkd.in/ejfSjfvw and pointed out that the need for AI prompt engineers is a give away that AI isn’t as user friendly as needed where you have not yet properly trained your staff.  Technology literacy isn’t just a legal requirement, it’s needed to realise the investment. 'Twas ever thus in tech... In the last couple of months, I’m seeing the discussion about ownership and reuse rights of the prompts as one of the more highly discussed areas on AI supply agreements. One to keep an eye on… #ThisisSpAInalTap #doesntquiteworkasahashtag

33

3 Comments

Delighted again with 4 new error-ridden circulars in #GST. 224 - appeal memo itself is challan to pre-deposit disputed demand. If limitation to file appeal to Tribunal stands deferred, how then can this pre-condition be denied the same courtesy? And another new form DRC3A that everyone suffering an adverse order must 'apply online' immediately (to stave off premature recovery) and (compelled to accord) 'discharge' to disputed demand, is imminently capable of large-scale mess. Remember taxpayers have shown stellar incompetence when it comes to using (even simple) online functionalities. This is also by far the funniest, in that it directs taxpayers to apply online but is not operational yet. What should taxpayers do? And if nothing now, why this circular even? Perhaps this cookie needs reconsideration because no taxpayer can be offered a procedure too intelligent to comply, only to forfeit refund due to limitation that runs on failure to comply. Forget 3A and the mess it's going to create with everyone getting it wrong in every which way imaginable, this circular bears such a gargantuan illegality that nothing in it can be salvaged, not even by making amends, that it deserves nothing short of a quiet burial by withdrawing it gracefully. All it takes is for one distraught taxpayer to go to Court with the very first question - when limitation to appeal stands deferred, how can a pre-condition to such appeal be enforceable already - to seek their Lordships to weigh in on such atrocious use of rule 142(2B). Also, what statutory authority vests with PO to entertain manual undertaking and hold off statutory duty to recover disputed demands that have passed limitation (to appeal) and become undisputable arrears? And such a terrible precedent too. If disputed demands are to be adjusted with pre-deposit, will interest apply on gross demand (on rejection of appeal) or only on demand net of pre-deposit? Will interest be payable on pre-deposit (if appeal is allowed)? Is this circular attempting to legislate? While others are still to join and list the mindless illegality that is rife in this circular, it begs to submit that giving quietus is the only way forward to this cookie that's all set to crumble. 225 - less said the better. 226 - circular expanding statutory limitation to claim refund of additional consideration received on past exports. Case of circular altering limitation under 54 when ToS remains date of original export. If altering ToS were (somehow) lawfully permissible, then it will not only deride interest recovered on belatedly discharged dues but will also engender mischievous use of DN by sectors that suffer from extended credit terms. 227 - refund to be claimed manually since online functionality is not available even though right to refund accrued long ago and claim is beyond limitation. There's only so much that a circular ought to do because a delegate cannot, in exercising power delegated, alter or expand that very power!

110

2 Comments

So, in a recent UKIPO decision, the formal requirements for representing animated Graphical User Interface ("GUI") designs in respect of UK design registrations has been clarified. A key takeaway from the decision is that there is no specific threshold for the number of features that views must have in common to be considered "visually related." To clarify: when you file a UK/EU design you file a series of "representations" and the idea is that all the "representations" (i.e. drawings) are linked to each other i.e. in the sense that they are "visually related". But this creates some issues when the design you are trying to protect relates e.g. to an animated image i.e. something which starts out as image X but ends up as image Y. 1. Legal Background The UKIPO’s Registered Designs Examination Practice Guide confirms that digital media, including GUIs, computer icons and screen savers, can be protected via design registration, provided they meet the requirements of the Registered Designs Act 1949. For animated designs, the guide specifies that up to twelve views, or "snapshots" can be used to represent a sequence, provided the views are visually related. 2. Case Summary In UK Design Application 6309668, an animated GUI design was under examination. The UKIPO initially objected, arguing that the twelve representations were not "visually related" due to the changing number and position of dots across the sequence. The UKIPO deemed this a lack of unity and requested that the Applicant delete eleven of the views. The Applicant argued against this, using side-by-side comparisons and superimposed images to show common features between the representations. The case was escalated to a Hearing Officer, who confirmed that there is no threshold for how many common features are required between views. The Officer held that the representations formed a "singular, self-contained sequence," and the objection was waived. 3. Implications This decision is significant as it confirms the flexibility in defining what constitutes a visually related sequence in animated design registrations. It reinforces that each case will be considered on its merits and underscores the importance of focusing on the overall sequence rather than rigid criteria for visual features. This decision is likely to influence future cases and consolidate the growing body of UK design law, particularly in the context of the increasing number of design registrations for animated GUIs, icons, and digital media following Brexit. #uk #designs #mbip #gui

24

A policy paper for #typeapproval, still focussing on Brexit (some time after the event) and very standards-centric. This goes to a big theme in my book: the need to focus on regulation for current #ADAS technologies (where regulation arguably lags behind), and not only for #automatedvehicles. Especially as the #AVBill is due to become law on Monday. https://lnkd.in/ecMmNtba

27

Now that the Scottish government has committed to bring forward the long-discussed Horizon exoneration legislation, with support by the other parties, some observations on institutional aspects. As background, the power structure is significantly different in Scotland from England and Wales (E&W): 1. In E&W, there are separate roles of (i) government legal adviser - the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, who are Members of Parliament, supported by a legal department and (ii) Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), an independent official, who leads the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - though some specialist cases are prosecuted by others. In Scotland, all these roles are combined in the Lord Advocate (LA), who heads up COPFS, Scottish equivalent to the CPS. 2. In E&W, the system for centuries was that prosecutions were mostly brought by private persons. The DPP has only covered most cases since the 1980s and private prosecutions are still brought. In Scotland, private prosecutions are almost unheard of. COPFS brought the Scottish Horizon cases. 3. But COPFS has a system of specialist reporting agencies (SRAs) which can bring cases to COPFS direct rather than having to go to the police like ordinary people. POL was an SRA. Against that background: - The LA appeared before the Scottish Parliament (SP) in Jan 2024 and resisted the idea of exoneration legislation, emphasising the courts' ability to deal with the matter (similar to comments by English judges objecting to the E&W legislation). - The Scottish government (SG) wanted legislation but the LA's stance put them in an awkward place. They came up with the snazzy idea of getting the SP to consent to the UK legislation extending to Scotland. But the relevant UK minister (Badenoch), while agreeing to extend it to Northern Ireland, refused to extend it to Scotland, calling the SNP 'lazy.' Politics as usual. - The SG has now brought forward its Bill, a mirror of the Westminster one. It was agreed by the various parties in the SP on 15 May to progress it quickly. - The LA then appeared again before the SP on 16 May. Her headline-grabbing statement was removal of the POL from the list of SRAs. On more sensitive topics: (i) She awkwardly refused to comment on whether she thought the exoneration legislation was a good idea, denying she'd rejected it in January but emphasising her support for it now as part of 'collective responsibility.' Clear enough. (ii) Has COPFS learned the right lessons when it comes both to computer evidence and not outsourcing its brain to SRAs? Under questioning, the LA offered some vague assurances. Who knows what the reality is. (iii) At what point will the conflict of interest in the LA's dual roles be addressed? To my mind, this episode perfectly illustrates it. The SNP promised in 2021 to consult on splitting it but has failed to do so (as the UK government pointed out in Feb 2024, albeit again no doubt stirring the pot). Links in comment.

14

13 Comments

How much human intellectual labour is required for an AI generated work to be copyright protected? My colleague, Nick White, shares his insights from the IBA 'AI Battlefields' conference. Read more here: https://ow.ly/MCYa50UciJ8 #AI #IBA #Copyright #Compliance #Computing #GenAI #Disputes

3

Last week saw the introduction of the latest bill on data reform to the UK Parliament. It's been a rather long and winding road to get to this point, and for those of you who haven't been closely monitoring this, here is the potted history: First we had the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill mark 1 introduced by the Boris Johnson Government in 2023. That was withdrawn by the ill fated Liz Truss administration who wanted to make more changes to get the "Brexit dividend". However, mark 2 of the bill looked remarkedly like the previous version (may be because it took more than the 42 days of Liz Truss' premiership to review it....). That failed to get through parliament before the General Election, resulting in the Kings Speech this summer proposing the Digital information and Smart Data Bill. That has now morphed into the Data (Use and Access Bill) that was published last week. Phew! After all that, at least on the data privacy front, there are even less changes in the latest bill than originally proposed in the first bill. Now, I am generally all for retaining the status quo given that is what organisations have already implemented (and we don't want to jeopardise the EU adequacy decision). However, I am disappointed that the Government still hasn't grappled with the overuse of DSARs. For details of what is (and isn't changing), see our blog. This also touches on some of the wider data reforms on smart data and digital identification schemes. #data #privacy #smartdata #digitalidentification #datause #dataaccess

12

2 Comments

Ho Ho Ho! With just 1 week before Christmas, Santa (I mean UK regulators and policy makers) have been busy on two of your favourite topics: 1) AI: UK Government announces consultation on significant changes to UK copyright laws. In a nutshell, the proposals create a new TDM exception which permits TDM for any purpose (including commercial purposes) unless the rights holder has explicitly opted OUT of this. The UK has had a TDM exception for nearly a decade. However, this is limited to non-commercial research purposes. The new exception represents a significant expansion of this. It follows similar proposals floated several years ago which did NOT include an opt-out mechanic, which was promptly nuked by UK creative industries. This new proposal attempts to strike a balance. Essentially, by allowing rightsholders to opt-out, the idea is that it preserves their ability to either: (a) prevent their content being used in AI tools at all, or (b) commercially licence it to tool creators.  That’s the theory, at least. Questions naturally remain around technically how opt-outs should be handled, and if those will be respected. This is particularly true for something as complex as games, where content can’t be metadata tagged as easily as (for example) pictures uploaded to an image repo, and where content is infinitely re-broadcast en-masse through third party services (e.g. let’s players / streamers). All the good things we spoke about in Vilnius last year! If you want to chat more, or respond to the consultation, drop me (or one of my awesome colleagues (including Sara Ashby, Rachel Alexander, Ted Shapiro and Michael Browne) a line. 2) Online Safety: the UK’s online safety regulator Ofcom has unveiled its final “illegal harms” guidance for the UK’s Online Safety Act. In scope businesses (including games with user-to-user functionality – e.g. chat) now have until 16 March 2025 to complete a risk assessment to understand the risks illegal content poses to children and adults on their services. Not ideal that 2 weeks of the 3 month grace period is eaten by Christmas! After that date, businesses will need to actually start implementing safety measures to mitigate those risks. Ofcom will be releasing a “digital tool” to help businesses figure our how to comply with illegal content duties. However, this won’t be available until “early 2025” – doh! I know many of you breathed a sigh of relief after completing your initial DSA compliance projects. I’m sorry to say though, OSA compliance is NOT the same as DSA compliance. There are similar themes, but significant differences. We’re working our way through the latest guidance. If you want to chat about this (e.g. what you should actually be doing right now), drop me or my excellent colleague Isabel Davies line. #AI #OSA #HoHoHo #Regulation #Games

63

3 Comments

The UK Government today announced the opening of its long-awaited consultation into copyright and AI, inviting views from industry on one of the hottest topics in IP law. Here we go again with TDM As widely predicted, the Government is seeking views on the introduction of a new copyright exception, which is intended to support AI training but allow rightsholders to easily reserve their rights, alongside introducing transparency requirements on AI firms. By way of reminder, the UK decided not to implement the DSM Directive (the deadline for which fell after the Brexit vote) and, as a consequence, only has a very narrow TDM exception at present, in s29A CDPA (limited to non-commercial research). The new exception on which views are sought would align the UK more closely with the EU position under Article 4 DSM Directive.

4

Good to see the UKIPO is looking at #AI and #copyright to hopefully build on the strengths of the UK AI sector. My colleague Oliver Pooley has taken a look at the consultation. #patents #UKIPO

8

Intellectual Property Office UK has announced its new SME financial support scheme. The gist of it is: - IP AUDIT: Businesses can get a part-funded IP Audit (worth £2,250) from an IP professional. The business must contribute £750 towards the cost of the audit. - IP ACCESS: Businesses can get a contribution of up to £2,250 for IP professional services, e.g. towards filing patent application. The business must pay at least 50% towards the total cost of the IP service. IP Audit funding is not mandatory for gaining the IP Access funding. It is great to see this funding continue, albeit in a slightly different format from before. As will most of these things, the devil is in the detail, and so please do get in touch if you want to discuss the availability and criteria of these grants. Knowing the process and likelihood of obtaining the grant before you spend time and effort jumping through hoops could save you an headache further down the line. For my Scottish contacts, Scottish Enterprise are a super friendly bunch who can also help you navigate the funding options.

24

The newly formed Creative Rights in AI Coalition urges the government to protect copyright ahead of the consultation on Tuesday. Around 40 members of the group consisting of authors and publishers are seeking the government to adopt basic principles to allow creatives to protect their works and strike deals with AI Companies over the use of their content. The government will need to strike a good balance between encouraging technological advancements but protecting the rights of the creative industry, an industry that generates over £100bn annually. Article below (its a good read) 👇 #AIandCopyright #CreativeTech #CopyrightChat #AIFuture #LegalTechTalk

4