Kate Bush campaigns against generative AI

Signatories include Stephen Fry


News Desk December 16, 2024
Bush last released an album in 2011. Photo: File

print-news

In a year that has seen high-profile artists raising their voices against artificial intelligence exploiting works of art, reclusive British singer-songwriter Kate Bush is the latest to add her name to the list.

As per The Guardian, the Wuthering Heights singer has called on UK ministers to protect artists from AI using their copyrighted works amid ongoing political uncertainty over how to handle the issue. Bush joins actors Julianne Moore, Kevin Bacon, Rosario Dawson, Stephen Fry and Hugh Bonneville in signing a petition, now backed by over 36,000 creatives, which states the "unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted".

The latest movement against AI comes as the UK government is expected to launch a consultation into a new system which would allow copyright holders to opt out of having their work mined to train AI algorithms. However, creatives have opposed the approach on the grounds that it is too complicated to opt out from it. Instead, artists would prefer an opt-in arrangement that would allow them to be paid in exchange for algorithms being trained on their work.

Bush's foray into the issue comes after Beatles legend Paul McCartney backed calls to stop mass copyright theft by generative AI companies, warning that the technology "could just take over", and that it "would be a very sad thing indeed".

Meanwhile, Radiohead singer Thom Yorke and Björn Ulvaeus of Abba, have also signed the same petition as Bush. Speaking on behalf of potentially exploited artists, Ulvaeus has said, "I don't know if it's too late but certainly we have to fight for the writers of … music so they can be remunerated in some form or other."

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ