Category Archives: Legal

Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Intellectual Property, Legal, Society, Technology

Press freedom, copyright laws, and AI firms

BRITAIN

AMONG Britain’s greatest contributions to Western culture are press freedom and copyright law. Established side by side more than 300 years ago, they underpinned the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and much of the social change that followed.

They facilitated the free flow and exchange of ideas, opinions, literature and music, and offered legal safeguards for creators and publishers against having their work stolen or plagiarised.

Today, these sacred principles are at risk as never before.

In their headlong rush to develop all-embracing artificial intelligence systems, big-tech firms seem determined to ride roughshod over the intellectual property rights of those whose material they want to appropriate.

Musicians, authors, film and TV companies, artists and media organisations are already seeing their work lifted and used without permission. As the struggle for AI dominance intensifies, this larceny is becoming increasingly brazen.

Worse still, the UK Government appears to be taking the side of the tech giants over the creatives.

In a consultative document on possible changes to copyright law, it has proposed four options. Of these, its “preferred” option is to give a new exemption to AI firms, allowing them to develop their machine learning with copyrighted material without permission unless the holder actively opts out of the process.

Ministers have claimed such a change would give creators more control, but this is an illusion.

One of the strengths of British copyright is that it’s automatic. Works do not have to be registered to be protected from being stolen.

That means individual artists and the smallest local news sites have the same rights and protections as the largest publishers.

Permitting AI firms to take what they want unless rights have been reserved is like telling burglars they can walk into homes unless there is a note on the door asking them not to. In any case, there is no effective technical means of reserving rights and creatives will often be unaware their material has been “scraped”.

It would be far better to strengthen rather than weaken copyright legislation so it can be enforced quickly and effectively against infringements by AI developers. The onus should surely be on them not to break the law in the first place.

Everyone understands that AI is a vast and growing phenomenon which will be of enormous benefit in fields such as healthcare and business efficiency.

Many people will also appreciate the Government’s desire for Britain to be at the forefront of this technological revolution. But that cannot be used as cover to trample over crucial rights and freedoms.

Ingesting the entire output of the British music industry or mass-market news websites will not contribute anything to medical research.

Neither will it do much for our economy, as most of the profits generated by the tech companies will be taken out of the country.

It is both surprising and troubling that the Government has done no analysis of the economic impact of its proposal.

The UK has the world’s second largest creative sector, generating an estimated £126billion a year and supporting 2.4million jobs. Relaxing copyright law would cause it incalculable damage.

We also have vibrant, free and media pluralism – for now at least.

Our traditional press is in the process of rapid flux, as print gradually gives way to new digital platforms and revenue streams. But the fundamentals remain the same – to inform and entertain the public with fair, accurate, challenging and well-written journalism.

In this age of conspiracy, disinformation, and fake news, trusted sources of information and commentary are more important than ever. But it costs money to produce them, and if every article can immediately be copied without payment, then generating the revenue needed to sustain reliable journalism becomes impossible.

A free and independent media has long been a cornerstone of our democracy, but it is under very serious threat. We take it for granted at our peril.

Standard
Britain, Government, ICC, Israel, Legal, Politics, Society

War crimes demand accountability

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

THE arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant, represent a historic milestone in the fight for accountability over war crimes.

For Israel’s leadership, the ICC’s action ends decades of perceived impunity and challenges what critics describe as Israel’s longstanding “shield of immunity”. There were predictable reactions: Netanyahu condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”, while others praised the warrants against Israel’s leaders as an “important historical precedent”. The ICC’s jurisdiction over Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem provides the legal foundation for this bold move. However, the real test of these warrants lies with the ICC’s 124 member states, which are legally obliged to arrest the accused and transfer them to The Hague. Failure to act would expose international law as a façade, undermining its ability and allowing powerful nations and their allies to trample justice with impunity. Enforcing these warrants is not just a legal obligation – it is a moral imperative to uphold the principle that no leader is above the law.

This mandate demands both individual accountability and state responsibility, prohibiting governments from aiding or enabling war crimes. The UK government faces criticism for its support of Israel, which campaigners argue has long contravened international law. Many European nations that championed ICC action against Russia’s Vladimir Putin must now confront their obligations toward Israel. Failing to enforce the warrants risks betraying commitments and eroding trust in multilateral justice. The consistency of their responses will test their commitment to international law.

Like Israel, the United States does not recognise the ICC’s authority. Washington’s longstanding rejection of ICC jurisdiction, coupled with threats of sanctions against cooperating states sends a troubling message: that international law applies only to weaker nations, not to global powers or their allies. Such resistance weakens the global justice system and calls into question the principles the US claims to uphold. The crimes at the centre of those warrants are among the gravest violations of international humanitarian law, including starvation as a weapon of war and deliberate attacks on civilians. When such acts are systematic and state-driven, they demand accountability. The ICC’s pursuit of justice tests the international community’s resolve to uphold these norms in the face of political resistance.

This moment represents more than a legal proceeding; it is a fundamental challenge to the international order. The ICC’s actions signal that even the most powerful nations must answer for breaches of humanitarian law. If member states fail to act, they risk rendering international law meaningless. The choice is clear: uphold the principles of justice and law or accept a world where power determines impunity. By endorsing the court’s decision, rogue states will begin to fear being brought to book. Upholding these principles is essential to a just international order where the law protects all, not just the strong. A powerful message is contained in the ICC warrants: that the era of unchecked impunity for war crimes must end.

A special responsibility falls to Britain, which helped to create the ICC when Labour’s Robin Cook was foreign secretary. It was an important and valuable achievement that should not now be undermined. Keir Starmer must make it absolutely, unambiguously clear that if Netanyahu or Gallant steps foot on UK territory, they will be arrested and handed over to the court to face trial. It’s not politics, and neither is it personal. It’s justice.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

Rights for workers. Reforms will be multi-phased

BRITAIN

BUSINESSES face years of uncertainty as a result of the Government’s phased introduction of major new workers’ rights.

A document published by the Department for Business and Trade admitted letting millions more staff sue their bosses from day one will create “concerns from business” and risks “unwelcome additional work for the tribunal system”.

But the “Next Steps” report also reveals that the landmark Employment Rights Bill is only the first stage of the shake-up, with many more reforms to be introduced later through secondary legislation or codes of practice.

The future burdens on firms include the “right to switch off” which will prevent managers from contacting staff out of office hours.

There will also be a review into the system of parental leave and the introduction of “socioeconomic duty”, which will force public sector bodies to consider the impact of policies on different classes in society, leading to fears the middle class will be squeezed out.

A proposed review of health and safety regulations could lead to staff getting the right to clock off if it gets too hot in their workplaces.

The DBT document says it will look at “how to modernise health and safety guidance with reference to extreme temperatures”. Unions have already called for a maximum of 30C (86F) indoors, or 27C for those doing strenuous work. Under a separate Equality (Race and Disability) Bill due later this year, firms employing more than 250 will have to report on the difference in pay between white and ethnic minority staff.

They will also have to show how they benefit the environment and communities when bidding for work, under plans to “ensure social value is mandatory in contract design”. Over the next few years, bosses will also have to follow the progress of legislation and contribute to public consultations if they want to raise concerns.

Experts within the field of employment law have expressed concerns. With multiple ongoing consultations for various reforms not yet included in this Bill, it remains to be seen if the numerous reforms will trickle into employment law over the course of months, if not years. That in turn may give rise to businesses struggling to keep up with the ever-changing legal position and risk ending up in hot water.

Now that the Employment Rights Bill has been introduced into Parliament, it’s clear what a daunting task employers will face. Much of the detail is still yet to come. Employers will have the opportunity to consult with the Government on the detail such as the length of probation periods, but that is vexed and problematic because they will have to wait longer until they are able to prepare for the detail of reforms yet to be published.  

Others believe that if the right balance is struck then we have the potential to get more people into work and boost economic growth. If the process is mishandled, however, there is a danger these things could have the opposite effect.

And there are concerns that these proposals will ultimately make it riskier and more costly for businesses to employ staff at a time when business confidence is at its lowest point in two years.

Standard