Jamie Watt and Simon Casinader of the MARQUES Copyright Team report on the results of the UK government consultation on copyright and AI.

The consultation

From 17 December 2024 to 25 February 2025 the UK government ran a consultation upon copyright and artificial intelligence. The consultation considered four government specified policy options on copyright and the training of artificial intelligence models, as well as various alternative approaches.

The four options proposed in the consultation were for the government to:

1. do nothing, and allow existing laws to remain in effect as currently drafted in relation to AI and copyright;
2. require licensing of rights under copyright in all cases;
3. create a broad text and data mining exception, allowing significant use of copyright works in the context of AI systems without rights holder permissions; and/or
4. create a text and data mining exception but coupled with an opt-out and processing transparency requirements.

In addition, the consultation also considered:

• the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by AI developers;
• transparency regarding access to, and use of, copyright works by AI developers, and about the outputs of AI systems;
• technical measures and standards that may be used to control access to, and use of, copyright works to develop AI systems;
• licensing of copyright works for AI development;
• enforcement of requirements and restrictions relating to the access to, and use of, copyright works to develop AI systems, and relating to their outputs; and
• computer-generated works and digital replicas

It was noted that the consultation could result in revisions to copyright law, and measures promoting transparency, promoting use and concerning licensing of copyright works.

In March 2026 the results of the consultation were published. They can be found here.

Factors considered in compiling the results

In compiling the results, the government recognised the effects of technology in allowing for new ways in which copyright works may be copied and communicated to the public. They also recognised the need to balance rights provided to creators with the public interest in allowing for exchange of information.

Specifically, they identified that AI can allow for greater information analysis and availability, but that AI systems would not work effectively without the presence of the results of human creativity. They further identified that AI systems can in some instances compete with the very creators that they learn from.

The government also identified a need to protect the UK’s creative economies, and to ensure fair reward for uses of resources creators may create. They noted uncertainties around how copyright and AI interacted, particularly in the case where autonomous agents may be involved, the growth of licensing regimes, ongoing development of technical standards and the presence of ongoing litigation in various jurisdictions. Particularly noted were gaps in available evidence.

What the report on the consultation said

A copyright exception for AI training

Responses (particularly those from the creative industries) generally indicated a rejection of a broad text and data mining exception, including where an opt-out would be provided. Certain respondents in the AI and research sector felt that such an approach would not achieve the aim of making the UK internationally competitive.

Noting the strong views expressed in the consultation and gaps in available evidence, the government noted that a broad copyright exception with an opt-out was no longer their preferred way forward. Instead, they proposed to “gather further evidence on how copyright laws are impacting the development and deployment of AI across the economy…consider and engage stakeholders on other potential policy approaches…[and to] continue to monitor developments in technology, litigation, international approaches, and the licensing market”.

In choosing this approach the government noted the importance of enabling the transformational benefits of AI whilst balancing this with the need to protect human creativity and the UK’s creative industries.

Transparency

Noting that some countries require AI developers to disclose training data sources, and that the majority of respondents favoured a similar approach, the government noted their agreement, however they proposed only to “continue monitoring the effects of transparency rules in other countries and consider [their] approach in the UK”.

In this context reference was made to working with a range of industry and other experts to develop best practice on transparency, but in a way which was proportionate and which would not involve unreasonable burdens, but which would promote clarity and enforcement for stakeholders of all sizes, without disincentivising AI development or deployment in the UK (including by non-UK developers).

Labelling of AI and human-created content

The government identified that the labelling of content to achieve clarity in the use of AI in its creation can affect people’s choices and protect against disinformation and harmful deepfakes. They also identified that no labelling obligations currently exist in the UK, but that there was a “relative consensus” which existed amongst respondents in favour of the “principle of labelling”.

As a result, the government proposed to “work with industry to explore best practice on labelling AI-generated content… continue monitoring international developments and…work with international partners to support the development of common solutions”.

In this, they noted the role of best practices in helping establish consumer confidence and public trust in AI outputs. In furthering goals in this respect they identified the importance of complementing not duplicating global processes and common international solutions.

Technical tools and standards

The government noted that technical tools and standards enable rights holders to express how their work can be accessed and used, helping them control and license their works. They also noted that the market for these tools is developing rapidly, and that on a general level tool development was supported (although respondents differed as regards the nature of any intervention required).

As such the government proposed “to keep the need for regulation of technical tools and standards under review… to continue to monitor international developments…[and]… to work with experts and industry to support best practice and adoption of market-led tools and standards”.

Licensing

Acknowledging that creators’ works are widely used to train AI models, and the importance of creator remuneration (particularly in creator incentivisation), the government identified that AI could provide a new revenue source for creators. Respondents generally felt that the government should not interfere in the licensing market, but rather (particularly in responses from the creative sector) that transparency was paramount – as transparency requirements would enable rights holders to better license and enforce rights.

As such the government proposed to “not to intervene in the licensing market at this stage [but] to monitor the market as it develops and…keep market-led approaches to licensing under review”. They also proposed “with regard to AI systems developed outside the UK…to continue monitoring global developments and judicial outcomes” and “to identify and assess further levers to support access to valuable datasets”, particularly through the Creative Content Exchange (CCE).

The CCE is a government-established marketplace to sell, buy, license and enable permitted access to digitised UK cultural institution creative assets and is intended to test a range of commercial models for licensing, with the aim of launching an operational pilot platform by Summer 2026.

Also noted was the power of AI to transform education by helping teachers focus on what they do best. In this respect the report stated that the UK’s Department for Education will continue to take forward its work to ensure the copyright framework allows the benefit of AI to be realised in education settings, and is now assessing a range of options, including to ensure pupil IP is used fairly.

Enforcement

Acknowledging that effective rights enforcement mechanisms were key to ensuring rights remained meaningful, and that AI posed particular challenges, the government stated that enforcement should be effective, accessible and proportionate, and that it was important to ensure that the UK retained a competitive enforcement framework.

With this in mind they proposed to “continue working with partners, including law enforcement and the judiciary, to help ensure the UK enforcement framework remains fit for purpose…[and] to identify and address enforcement barriers and consider where action to mitigate these barriers may be required”. They also proposed “to consider the case for and approach to regulatory oversight of transparency or other measures, if legislation across these is introduced”. However they did not propose the establishment of any new “AI regulator” at this time.

Computer-generated works

The results acknowledged that in the UK the possibility for protection for computer-generated works created without a human author already existed, under present legislation. Most respondents felt that works solely generated by AI should not attract copyright, and that this part of UK law should be amended accordingly.

The government identified a need to incentivise and protect human creativity, and with the responses in mind proposed a balance in removing this specific type of protection whilst allowing copyright to continue to protect works created with AI assistance.

Digital replicas

The government identified that AI made it easier to create digital replicas of someone’s voice or face, and that harm could be suffered where this took place without permission. They noted the presence of some legal protections, but that they did not cover all situations where a replica may be made without consent, and the presence of some support for enhanced protections (but that there was no single view in this respect).

They agreed that AI presented increasing risks for artists and the public and proposed “to explore a range of options for addressing these risks, while protecting the potential of this technology to support legitimate innovation [including] consideration of whether it would be beneficial to introduce a new digital replica or personality right”.

Specific actions

The report noted various specific actions to take place following the release of the report. These included:

• Monitoring important developments in the wider global market, particularly in the US where most AI models are trained, and as regards transparency rules in the EU and parts of the US, and new technical standards under development.
• Using commissioned research to understand the impact of copyright reform on the creative industries, and building the evidence base on the supply and demand of creative content for use in training, to help build a framework for quantifying the impacts of copyright reform on the creative industries and AI sectors.
• Evidence gathering on the effectiveness on protection tools and standards and how these support the creative industries, competitiveness and access to data.
• Collecting evidence on developers across the tech stack and the extent to which copyright affects business activity, focussing on areas of UK strength such as fine-tuning, application-layer development, and supporting this via stakeholder engagement, including with sector and industry bodies, to understand how developers source training data and deploy text and data mining solutions in practice, and how they may respond to different policy options.
• Compiling analyses and evidence on AI’s impact on the economy and labour market, tracking the pace and pattern of AI adoption across sectors, as well as surveying the extent to which copyright affects AI adoption.

Comment

Whilst the proposals are in many respects a statement of continuing to wait and see how things develop, that approach may be considered sensible with respect to a fast-moving market where things will change and develop rapidly over the next few years. Legislating at this time may not be sensible, given the market may very well differ by the time any legislation is drafted and enacted. The recognition of fitting in with global approaches is perhaps to be welcomed as the UK, its rights holders and its developers do not exist in a vacuum.

Whether this will ultimately be beneficial for rights holders remains to be seen; indeed whether a unified global approach is possible may also be perhaps somewhat questionable. Given the prevalence of development located in other countries – and given the multitude of US litigation and their notable differences in copyright law when compared with the UK, and the relevance of the territorial location processing and communication in recent UK litigation – one may consider that the UK’s approach could simply devolve to mirror that of their most important economic partners. However, whether this will be the case is simply guesswork at this point in time.

What is known is that the UK’s approach remains fluid, to an extent. Where some certainty appears to be creeping in can be seen in relation to specific key points, as follows. It is highly unlikely that the UK will enact a broad text and data mining exception to copyright, whether in a standalone form or coupled with an opt-out mechanism. In the meantime, existing restrictions and approaches, and enforcement mechanisms, will continue to apply. We may, however, see some change in relation to the UK’s approach to allowing protection of computer-generated works to exclude works generated wholly without human intervention. We may also see some sort of greater protection for image rights, in the context of AI in the UK.

For rights holders, this should be generally welcomed. The key message, though, for rights holders to take from this is the importance of engaging with their industry and trade bodies, to address specific issues and further the development and implementation of industry standard approaches/non-legislative rights protection mechanisms and controls.

There was significant mention in the report of the importance and role of such bodies, and their relevance in shaping the rights landscape in the UK in relation to the development and use of AI should not be underestimated. They are also likely to play a key role in subsequent evidence gathering.

Industry bodies could also have significant impact on rights holders’ engagement with developers and the creation of balanced approaches in rights holder/developer relationships, acknowledging the fact that one needs both developers and creators properly incentivised and remunerated to make AI work.

Jamie Watt is a Partner and Head of the IP/IT team at Harper Macleod in Edinburgh and Simon Casinader is a Partner in the IP practice at K&L Gates in London

WIPO is hosting webinars on the Hague System during April, May and June 2026.

The webinars are in English, French and Spanish and cover the following topics:

• New Bulletin Search Capabilities in the Hague System: A Practical Webinar for Users and IP Offices
• eHague Power Tips: Portfolios, Access Rights and the New Notification System 
• Helping SMEs Protect Designs

The dates and times of each webinar are available on the WIPO website here, where you can also register to attend. All the webinars will include a live Q&A with WIPO experts.

WIPO states: “Designed for IP rights holders, representatives, and IP offices, these sessions offer practical tips to manage your portfolios, set access rights, monitor registrations, and make the most of the new secure notification system. We’ll also explore advanced search tools in the Hague Bulletin and discover strategies tailored to help small and medium-sized enterprises protect their designs effectively on the international stage.”

Applications via the Hague System for international protection of industrial designs increased by 9.4% in 2025, according to figures published by WIPO this month.

The number of designs contained in the applications also grew by 5.2% to reach 28,588 designs – a record number. This was the fifth consecutive year of growth for the Hague System.

China led in design filings in 2025 with 5,911 designs, followed by Germany (4,530 designs), the United States (3,882), Switzerland (2,285) and Italy (2,015).

Four of the top five states of origin recorded growth, with the United States increasing by 27.5% and China by 21.4%. Italy fell by 10.4%.

There were significant increases in filings by Huawei Technologies and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software and by Apple. Ferrari filed fewer designs in 2025 compared to 2024.

Huawei Technologies claimed the highest number of published designs in 2025, with 1,200 designs included in applications. Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software filed 659 designs, Procter & Gamble 613 (28 fewer than in 2024), Philips Electronics 540 and Samsung Electronics 525.

Among the top 10 applicants, five operate in the ICT and consumer electronics sector, two in consumer goods, two in automotive, and one in construction.

More details are available on WIPO’s website here, along with data on PCT, Madrid System and ADR filing trends in 2025.

WIPO Director General Daren Tang (pictured) said in a statement: “In this world of shortened innovation and business cycles, WIPO will work hard to ensure that our Global IP Services keeps pace with the changing expectations of our customers, making what we offer more efficient, more digital and more customer centred, so that entrepreneurs and enterprises can continue using the PCT, Madrid and Hague systems to secure IP protection across borders.”

Photo © WIPO by Emmanuel Berrod, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The MARQUES Design Tracker has new sections on Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Greece, Hungary, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The Design Tracker is a valuable map-based tool for design practitioners, which provides applicants with an overview of filing requirements for national and International filings.

It now covers more than 40 countries in six continents.

For each country, standard information is provided, including: Are multiple applications available? How many views are accepted and what kinds of views? What means of representation are available and are there substantive and/or formal requirements for the representation? Is deferment available? What information is mandatory to provide? What is the term of protection and is there a grace period? What are the grounds of examination?

The Design Tracker is compiled by members of the MARQUES Designs Team. Please contact a member of the Team for more information, or if you have any questions.

You can access the Design tracker here.

IP practitioners with experience in design protection are being encouraged to join the EUIPO Pro Bono Programme.

Last year, the Programme received 1,375 SME support requests, with over 90% of applications being microenterprises.

Requests came from all EU Member States, led by Germany, Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands.

According to EUIPO, 49% of SMEs needed help preparing an IP application and 23% sought guidance on selecting the most appropriate IP rights.

The Pro Bono network includes 289 active IP experts, with 165 new members in 2025. Most consultations last one to four hours.

In 2026, the Programme will place a stronger emphasis on engaging designers and design-driven SMEs. To find out more, and sign up, visit the EUIPO website here.

DesignView has added images from 44 IP offices outside the EU, meaning its functionality now covers data from all connected IP offices.

The total number of searchable images is over 111 million, an almost eight-fold increase, according to an announcement by EUIPO.

EUIPO and the EU IP offices launched DesignView in 2012 through the EU IP Network (EUIPN). It is now the world’s largest free online design database, covering 24 million industrial designs, and the world’s largest image-search system.

EUIPO states: “DesignView is a free, multilingual online consultation tool that enables users to search, view and compare industrial designs from participating IP offices worldwide in one platform. Available 24/7, it allows businesses, designers and examiners to visualise existing designs, assess novelty, monitor market trends and follow updates on registered designs. The tool also supports offices in examination processes and in assessing earlier rights.”

The second day of the MARQUES Design Symposium in Frankfurt included sessions on the value of design registrations, unfair competition and using trade marks to protect product design.

Value of designs

Mikas Miniotas, AAA Legal Services in Estonia and Co-Chair of the MARQUES Designs Team, introduced and moderated Session 3: The added value of design registrations.

Lynn Schreier, On Holding AG, Switzerland, speaking in a personal capacity, said the key question to ask is: what is the purpose behind a design registration? The reasons may include to protect innovation, deter competitors, enforce against copies or imitations, gain leverage in commercial negotiations or as a marketing tool.

In the fashion industry, a major trend is that time to market has got shorter. This means that, in many cases, the IP counsel may not see the final design before they have filed applications. The different requirements in each country also have to be taken into account.

In addition, said Lynn: “Product designs are hard to protect. Often the most commercial products are the most simple from a design perspective.” That means that protection can be relatively narrow. She added that design registrations are useful for online enforcement, and can be uploaded to online portals, while copyright can be harder to prove. When it comes to counterfeits, she said: “I’m usually looking for a fast solution.”

Kal Rosenstein, Chief Experience Officer of WDC26 gave a talk during Thursday evening’s dinner, focusing on “Design and Democracy”

Delivering a presentation on behalf of Eva Maierski, Lubberger Lehment, Germany, who was unable to attend, Mikas talked about the boundaries between copyright and design law. He focused on Deity v Mundorama and Stay Design, a design infringement action concerning shoes. The CJEU said that an EU design does not require genuine design activity; modifications to visual characteristics made ad hoc do not preclude individual character; and fashion trends are not likely to limit the degree of freedom of the designer.

The Court stressed that the law protects the appearance of a product. “The Court said: We are not concerned with how it was created. That is not important for the validity of the design – unless there is bad faith,” said Mikas. A design “does not require a minimum degree of creation,” according to the Court.

Mikas raised the question whether AI-created designs could be protected, and also how can you know if something is created by AI?

In the final presentation in this session, John Coldham, Gowling WLG (UK) LLP provided a UK perspective asking: “What works in real life against real-life problems?” He discussed a case brought by Marks & Spencer against Aldi over gin bottles. “The principal point of this case is that M&S succeeded, so please do consider registering products or parts of products as designs,” said John.

John also talked about UK unregistered designs, which cover shape only and last 10-15 years. He said the 2015 G-Star case concerning jeans was a good illustration of how powerful UK unregistered designs can be. As surface decoration is excluded, UK unregistered designs may even be more useful than registered designs in some cases. The important takeaway for businesses is to keep records, he concluded.

Harmonising unfair competition in Europe

In Session 4, Jorn Torenbosch of Utrecht University summarised his research on the harmonisation of unfair competition. He argued that: “Through the backdoor of international law, the entire area of unfair competition law has been harmonised to some degree in the EU.” This conclusion was based on the application of the TRIPs Agreement and the Paris Convention. While in principle the EU is not bound by the Paris Convention, the EU can succeed member states in international commitments when competence has been transferred to it in full.

In practice this means, said Jorn, that the CJEU has the final say on what is effective protection against unfair competition, when an act of competition is contrary to honest practices and what is the meaning of the prohibition of all acts of such a nature as to create confusion. “You can make it a European question instead of a national one,” he said.

Trade marks for product designs

Session 5: Trade mark protection of product designs was moderated by Jesse Hofhuis, Hofhuis, The Netherlands and featured Catherine Shapiro, Airwair International Limited – Dr. Martens, UK; Michael Goldmann, Harte-Bavendamm, Germany; and Xavier Ragot, Christian Louboutin SAS, France. Jesse began the discussion by showing an image of the Birkenstock sandal and asking: is this an indication of origin in a trade mark sense?

Catherine set out how she explains trade mark law to people in the business. “Over the years Dr. Martens has distilled our design language into a set of protectable trade dress features,” she said. These include a distinctive yellow-on-black heel loop, the yellow welt stitch and the two-tone grooved sole edge. Every one of its products, including boots, sandals and bags, is inspired by the original 1460 boot.

She stressed that many products have design features that are protectable as trade marks, and it is important to use them consistently over time to drive equity in that design. Dr. Martens has a variety of trade mark rights in different countries, said Catherine, adding: “It’s very hard to design around our trade mark portfolio if you have a business that’s global or pan-European.”

“By enforcing, our trade dress becomes even more recognisable. We enhance the distinctiveness, making it easier to deal with lookalikes,” she said, adding that the company is “very proactive” in finding lookalikes and monitoring agreements. It has dealt with thousands of infringements over the years.

Michael shared some examples of trade marks of product designs in the EU, including trade marks for the shape of goods, pattern marks and position marks. He noted that trade mark law is sceptical about product designs, based on concerns about whether consumers use them to identify origin and about perpetual protection. “The CJEU interprets all the exclusions in Article 7(1)(e) quite broadly,” he said.

MIchael pointed out that  the Catch 22 of protecting product designs is: “If a product design is ordinary or common, then it is not distinctive. But if it’s very attractive it comes under the substantial value exclusion.” Imaginative add-ons can help work around the exclusions, he said. He concluded that there is uncertainty and in fact the functional exclusions are rarely raised by examiners, giving examples of product design marks that have been registered by EUIPO.  

Answering questions from Jesse, Xavier discussed challenges in protecting Louboutin’s trade marks for its red sole in jurisdictions including Japan and China. He said obtaining an EUTM was a game-changer for Louboutin. He also touched on its success in bringing enforcement actions under both trade mark and unfair competition laws.

MARQUES Chair Claudia Pappas concluded the Symposium, describing it as “inspiring”. “We have many more aspects to cover, maybe in two years’ time,” she said.