An Open Letter on the Future of UK Production Music Industry and Creative Copyright Protection

Dear Ms. Reeves,

I am writing regarding the concerning proposals to allow technology companies to scrape UK music copyrights for AI training purposes without fair compensation. As the founder of Felt Music, a production music company that has built a catalogue of over 35,000 copyrights over two decades, I must express serious concerns about the impact this would have on our industry.

Over twenty years, we have invested significantly in developing our catalogue, providing employment and income opportunities to several hundred composers, musicians, and music industry professionals. This includes creating career pathways for graduates and sustaining the livelihoods of established professionals who rely on production music as either their primary or supplementary income.

The proposal to allow tech companies to freely scrape our works effectively grants them the right to benefit from our substantial investments without fair compensation. Our industry's established business model is clear: anyone wishing to use our catalogues must either license or purchase them. There is no logical or ethical reason why AI training should be treated differently - use of creative works demands fair payment, regardless of the technology involved. These companies could potentially generate catalogues far exceeding ours within days, leveraging our decades of work and investment to create competing services that could render our business model obsolete. This would severely impact the financial stability of over 200,000 UK composers and songwriters, including circa 50,000 in the production music industry alone, who have invested their careers in creating valuable copyrights that generate both current and future income streams.

While we fully embrace technological advancement and innovation in the creative industries, we cannot allow these developments to proceed without fair compensation and consideration for those who have invested their lives in building this sector. The proposed changes would benefit relatively few tech companies at the expense of hundreds of thousands of creators and rights holders.

Furthermore, the suggestion that businesses should 'opt-out' of having their works scraped is fundamentally flawed. The onus should be on tech companies to approach rights holders and negotiate fair compensation - an 'opt-in' system. This is not merely a technical distinction but a fundamental principle of copyright protection.

Creating a Wild West environment where tech companies can freely harvest creative works unless explicitly told not to is both legally and morally indefensible.

This poses several serious concerns:

1. It undermines the substantial investments made by UK music businesses and composers who have built sustainable, long-term income streams through copyright creation

2. It threatens the livelihoods of thousands of composers and music professionals who depend on this income, including the many employees who service and maintain production music libraries

3. It risks deteriorating the UK's position as a global leader in music production and creativity

4. It sets a dangerous precedent for the devaluation of intellectual property rights

5. It risks fundamentally altering the creative landscape, potentially favouring mass-produced AI-generated content over human artistry

Once this precedent is set, it cannot be reversed. The implications for creative industries extend far beyond immediate economic impact - they touch the very future of human creativity and artistic expression. While the number of affected creators and businesses may seem modest in raw figures, the ripple effects would impact generations to come, effectively detonating a 'tech bomb' that would obliterate established income streams and industry structures without proper consideration or transition planning. Any major technological transition must include support mechanisms and careful consideration for existing businesses and individuals - not an unthought-out sweep that destroys livelihoods overnight.

I would earnestly encourage conducting a comprehensive survey across the industry to gather concrete data on this proposal's impact. This could be coordinated through key organizations including PRS for Music, the Music Publishers Association, International Production Music Group, Featured Artists Coalition, Musicians' Union, and the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors. The results would provide crucial evidence of the industry's position on this matter.

We firmly urge you to reconsider this proposal and instead implement policies that:

• Require explicit opt-in permission from rights holders before any copyrighted works can be used for AI training
• Mandate direct negotiation between tech companies and rights holders for fair compensation
• Establish clear legislative protection for all copyright owners, both businesses and individual creators
• Protect the rights and investments of UK creative businesses
• Ensure sustainable income streams for composers and music professionals
• Maintain the UK's competitive advantage in the creative industries

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and provide additional insights into how this proposal would impact our industry.

Yours sincerely,

Natalie Dickens founder, Felt Music