Defending copyright means defending the rights of creators and ensuring a sustainable future for the creative and knowledge-based economy. Not my words, but those of the artificial intelligence box ChatGPT. On this, we should obey. On 25th February, the government’s consultation into copyright reaches a conclusion. Although some regard it as foregone, now is the moment to engage. Once lost, this opportunity will not come again.

For those on catch-up, the Keir Starmer-led administration wants to weaken protections around writing and other creative activities in order to facilitate the training of AI models. In a plot twist worthy of Jeffrey Archer, its preferred route is not one that defends creativity, but an opt-out system, whereby tech companies are given leeway to data-mine published work, until such time as its owner says no. There are two other options: one is status quo (preferred by most creatives); the second is to allow complete freedom for tech companies for the purposes of training, without any kind of opt-out.

In a column written for The Bookseller last week, the cross-bench peer Baroness Beeban Kidron was forthright about the government’s action: “I can think of no government policy in any other sector that makes a citizen or business proactively opt out of the market – a corner shop from which you can steal, unless they post a message saying you must not. There is no dictate from government that suggests that software licences, travel tickets or drugs must be given away for free unless you withdraw them from the marketplace.” Kidron, too, pointed out how assiduously tech groups protect their own intellectual property.

Now is the moment to engage. Once lost, this opportunity will not come again

Kidron is not just speaking out, she is also doing the work. Two weeks ago, the House of Lords voted against the government to add provisions to a Data Bill that – as opposed to weakening copyright law – would make the existing copyright framework enforceable. The amendments passed by 145 to 126, a significant achievement with Labour whipping against and the Tories whipping to abstain. Eighteen backbench Peers spoke in favour of the amendments, while no peers spoke in support of the government position. The amendments would mean AI companies were subject to UK copyright law wherever they are based and allow copyright owners to know when, where and how their work is used in AI systems. These are up for debate in the Commons this week and, while few expect them to pass into law, the strength of feeling should make the government pay attention.

Others have also spoken out. The author Jeanette Winterson commented on the UK’s long history in this area, and for the government to understand that “what we do is not just data”. She added: “If you want to protect polar bears, you don’t put them in the zoo. You just look after the ice floes around them.” Richard Osman has called it theft. In a separate interview with the Guardian, Kidron described the consultation as “fixed and inadequate”. Some take a slightly more compromising view, suggesting that adding a new layer of transparency over otherwise unauthorised use may unlock future deals, so long as an opt-out is legally workable.

We speak with many voices across this business, but on this we can be aligned. At an AI-themed dinner I attended, one participant blurted out: “No-one cares about copyright.” We must prove them wrong, and put the government on notice that we wish to opt out of the opt-out.