AI development needs UK TV – but can both industries thrive together?

Whilst the UK Government’s latest AI proposals make for essential reading across all creative industries, the world of TV has been waiting with particularly bated breath.

Intellectual property rights are the foundation for almost all the value that audiovisual stakeholders can create: from the multitude of headline rights and underlying copyright interests (film, music, scripts, formats, production, direction, design) and related performers’ rights; to brand, image, and likeness rights for talent, and multiple prequel and sequel, franchise and spin-off rights.

The UK is a powerhouse in the global screen industry. Underpinned by massive inward investment and international demand, UK films commanded more than a fifth of global box office share in 2024, amounting to 6.1 billion USD. Figures from 2025 revealed a record £6.8 billion production spend. It is the world’s largest exporter of unscripted TV programming, with UK-created formats accounting for roughly a third of global adaptations. By any measure, the UK industry is a national treasure.

AI is also enormous and getting bigger by the day. Whilst artificial intelligence technologies have the potential to be additive and even valuable to the UK film and TV industries (particularly in streamlining elements of the production process), there is also enormous potential for disruption and damage. It was only two years ago that AI played a part in widespread protests across Hollywood, with walk-outs from writers and actors alike bringing the US industry to a standstill.

Big technology last collided with the creative industries at the turn of the century, and has been rubbing up against it ever since. Does the Government’s latest report tackle the biggest problems? And what could be the key drivers towards successfully integrating AI into the TV industry in the longer term?

Growing tensions

Even though artificial intelligence has been around for decades, TV and broadcast have only been grappling with its effects for a relatively short time. Where technology causes disruption, typically the law takes a while to catch up. Last year’s Data (Use and Access) Act answered some questions, but also raised other issues.

It has been argued that there has been not enough give and too much take in AI providers’ interactions with UK creators. Despite depending greatly on content to effectively train large language models, there has been minimal reciprocal investment in production and the creative industries. Although several of the large technology companies have invested heavily in large-scale commissioning of content itself, very few have approached production companies and content owners to license their datasets for the purposes of training LLMs.

Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that the government’s initial proposals for an opt-out text and data mining (TDM) exemption were met with such severe pushback from creatives, including the likes of Ian McKellen, Dua Lipa and Coldplay. The music industry has been particularly vociferous in its opposition to what it calls unlawful AI training.

For TV and the wider creative industry, the TDM exemption risked deepening rather than resolving the growing gap between value extracted by AI developers and value returned to content owners. It undermined the basic principle that copyright requires permission and removed incentives to pay for licenses. The resultant risk is a framework that normalises unpaid use while eroding the UK’s copyright regime, highlighting the key question for the industry: can AI and creative industries truly work in partnership, or will one come at the expense of the other?

With criticism and pressure on the government mounting, going into these latest proposals the stage was set for a critical intervention.

Do the changes go far enough?

The recent proposals are not a pivot towards creators’ interests. However, there are clear signs the government is looking to foster a more rightsholder-focused national environment. Crucially, the government has now abandoned the broad TDM exception likely in response to the outcry from the creative sector.

Secondly, proposals fostering greater creator control and transparency are a step in the right direction, alongside a stated intention to work closely with the AI industry to develop best practices. Although this does not go so far as committing to legislation, the proposals recognise the need to maintain a strong level of copyright protection - a foundational pillar of the creative industries - while supporting innovation.

Another significant change is the Government’s consideration of whether to review or reform protections under UK law for computer-generated works. In many respects, the UK has been something of an outlier in affording (albeit limited) copyright protection to works generated by computers. If this copyright protection is removed, there could be serious consequences for film and television financing. Already a risk-heavy environment, financiers would be severely deterred from investing in a production over which they cannot own or control rights, or license content.

Ultimately, however, the report signals a more market-led approach than many had anticipated. The UK seems to want industry practices to evolve organically. This suggests a more cautious, wait-and-see stance, with policymakers likely to monitor how legal frameworks and industry standards develop internationally.

The all-important role of licensing

The report takes an important step in recognising the expanding market for legitimate licensing for AI training data. The Government’s Creative Industries Sector Vision Plan and AI Opportunities Action Plan both highlight the creative and financial value which AI and the creative industries can gain from collaboration. When it comes to unlocking this, developing a healthy and agile licensing climate holds the key.

The government has indicated it isn’t inclined to intervene in the development of a licensing framework, a move likely to be welcomed by both sides as it allows the market to grow organically. Despite this, a clear legal commitment may not be a bad idea, and in fact this legislative impetus may kickstart responsible and rights-compliant AI use. As part of this system, creating fair incentives encouraging AI providers to comply with a fair licensing system could also provide the push needed for developers to embrace licensing.

With no singular international approach emerging yet, the UK has the unusual - and golden - chance to pave the way for a global, responsible, and enforceable AI standard. Going forward, many are of the view that it’s essential that British film and television is compensated for its role in powering innovation, positioning the UK and its industries as powerhouses at the forefront of development.

Gregor Pryor is managing partner EME at Reed Smith