Giles Martin on AI plans: ‘It’s like saying you can burgle my house unless I ask you not to’ | Ents & Arts News

Producer Giles Martin has said plans to allow AI firms to use artists’ work without permission, unless creators opt out, is like criminals being given free rein to burgle houses unless they are specifically told not to.

Martin, who is the son of Beatles producer George Martin and worked with Sir Paul McCartney on the Get Back documentary series and the 2023 Beatles track Now And Then, spoke to Sky News at a UK Music protest at Westminster coinciding with a parliamentary debate on the issue.

Under the plans, an exemption to copyright would be created for training artificial intelligence (AI), so tech firms would not need a licence to use copyrighted material – rather, creators would need to opt out to prevent their work from being used.

Creatives say if anything it should be opt-in rather than out, and are calling on the government to scrap the proposals and stop AI developers “stealing” their work “without payment or permission”.

“If you create something unique it should be unique to you,” says Martin. “It shouldn’t be able to be harvested and then used by other people. Or if it is, it should be with your permission… it shouldn’t be up to governments or big tech.”

Sir Elton John and Simon Cowell are among the celebrities who have backed a campaign opposing the proposals, and Sir Paul has also spoken out against them.

“This is about young artists,” says Martin. “If a young Paul McCartney at the age of 20 or 22 wrote Yesterday, now… big tech would almost be able to harvest that song and use it for their own means. It doesn’t make any sense, this ruling of opting out – where essentially it’s like saying, ‘you can burgle my house unless I ask you not to’.”

‘I’m not anti-AI – it’s a question of permission’

The Beatles’ track Now And Then was written and recorded by John Lennon in New York in the late 1970s, and AI was used to extract his vocals for the 2023 release. The Get Back documentary also used audio restoration technology, allowing music and vocals to be isolated.

“I’m not anti [AI], I’m not saying we should go back to writing on scribes,” Martin said. “But I do think that it’s a question of artist’s permission.”

Using AI to “excavate” Lennon’s voice was with the permission of the late singer’s estate, he said, and is “different from me getting a 3D printer to make a John Lennon”.

He added: “The idea of, for example, whoever your favourite artist is – the future is, you get home from work and they’ll sing you a song, especially designed for you, by that artist, by that voice. And it’ll make you feel better because AI will know how you’re feeling at that time. That’s maybe a reality. Whoever that artist is, they should probably have a say in that voice.”

Read more:
Authors ‘absolutely sick’ to discover books in ‘shadow library’
AI tool could be game-changer in battle against Alzheimer’s

Crispin Hunt, of 1990s band The Longpigs, who also attended the protest, said “all technology needs some kind of oversight”.

“If you remove the ability for the world to make a living out of creativity, or if you devalue creativity to such an extent that that it becomes a hobby and worthless to do, then humanity in life will be far less rich because it’s art and culture that makes life richer,” he said. “And that’s why the companies want it for free.”

The Data (Use and Access) Bill primarily covers data-sharing agreements, but transparency safeguards were removed at committee stage.

Critics say changes need to be made to ensure that companies training generative AI models disclose whether work by a human creator has been used and protect creatives under existing copyright rules.

In February, more than 1,000 artists and musicians including Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Sam Fender and Annie Lennox released a silent album in protest at the proposed changes.

At that time, a government spokesperson said the UK’s current rules were “holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential – and that cannot continue”.

The spokesperson said they were consulting on proposals that better protect the “interests of both AI developers and right holders” and to deliver a solution “which allows both to thrive”.