In today’s fast-paced digital landscape, businesses are increasingly leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT to streamline operations.
However, recent developments surrounding the now-discontinued “share” feature of ChatGPT should serve as a critical reminder of the importance of robust data governance and proactive measures to safeguard sensitive information, such as personal data and confidential business information.
What happened?
OpenAI recently faced scrutiny after its “share” feature in ChatGPT appeared to inadvertently expose private conversations to public search engines such as Google. While the feature allowed users to share chat links, discrepancies in the user interface and terms across platforms (e.g., Web, iOS, Android) led to confusion over whether shared chats were private or publicly discoverable. Although OpenAI has since removed the feature and requested the removal of indexed links from search engines stating it was a “short-lived experiment”, researchers have alleged that over 100,000 conversations, many containing personal data, were archived and remain accessible in some instances.
At the time of writing, it is also reported that chats from X.com’s “Grok” platform have been exposed online, highlighting a common risk within the industry.
Why it matters to your business
This issue underscores the risks associated with using AI tools and highlights potential vulnerabilities that could expose sensitive company or client data. For businesses, the key takeaways are:
Personal data: Conversations shared through AI platforms may include personal data about your employees, customers or clients. There are several data protection compliance issues that must be considered prior to sharing personal data with AI platforms from meeting transparency requirements via privacy policies to carrying out supplier due diligence on your data processing agreements with AI platforms.
Confidential information: As with personal data, conversations can be shared through AI platforms about your internal strategy, or intellectual property. Once shared outside of your business, such information can be challenging to remove entirely.
Reputational damage: Data leaks can severely impact your brand’s reputation, erode client trust, and lead to loss of business.
Regulatory implications: Mishandling of sensitive data could result in non-compliance with data protection laws such as the UK GDPR, leading to fines and legal challenges. Such fines can be up to £17.5m or 4% of your annual turnover (whichever the greater).
Legal claims: Clients or other individuals whose data is exposed may bring legal claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence, privacy or their data protection rights, and complain to the data protection regulator. Some larger data breaches have also attracted attempts to start ‘class-action’ claims.
What should you do?
If your organisation uses AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, now is the time to review and strengthen your policies and practices. Below are some actionable steps to consider:
1. Implement an AI usage policy
If you haven’t already, establish a clear AI usage policy within your organisation. This should cover:
Approved AI tools and platforms
Guidelines on the type of information that can be inputted into AI systems
Specific processes for sharing data generated by AI tools
2. Train employees
Educate employees on the risks of using AI tools and ensure they understand how to use these platforms responsibly. Emphasise the importance of avoiding inputting personal data or confidential data into AI systems.
3. Conduct data audits
Review your organisation’s use of AI tools to identify any potential exposure of data. If you suspect that data may have been shared via ChatGPT’s “Share” feature, investigate whether these links have been indexed and take immediate steps to request their removal.
4. Monitor evolving AI risks
AI technology evolves rapidly, and so do its associated risks. Stay updated on developments in the AI space, including how tools such as ChatGPT handle data and privacy.
5. Seek legal support
If your business is impacted by the ChatGPT share breach or similar issues, legal advice can help you assess your exposure, address potential liabilities, and implement stronger safeguards.
How we can help
We understand the complex intersection of technology, data, and the law. Our team of experts can assist you with:
Drafting and implementing AI usage policies tailored to your business
Conducting data audits to assess your organisation’s risk exposure
Advising on regulatory compliance and potential liabilities
Supporting you with incident response and remediation in the event of a data breach, regulatory involvement, and legal claims
If you have any questions about how the OpenAI ChatGPT share breach might affect your business or need assistance in implementing preventative measures, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our specialists.
We have advised Ovation Rights on its acquisition of Sir Richard Stilgoe’s rights in some of the most successful stage musicals of all time, including The Phantom of the Opera and Starlight Express. The transaction represents one of the most significant acquisitions of theatrical rights in recent years, marking a pivotal step in recognising the enduring value of theatrical rights and the legacies behind them.
Founded and led by producer Jamie Hendry and former Amazon executive Philip Green, Ovation Rights introduces the scale and strategy ordinarily seen with music catalogue acquisitions to the creators and rightsholders of major plays and musicals. The company collaborates closely with authors, composers, lyricists and estates, working as custodians to protect legacies, honour artistic visions and passionately champion works.
Our team was led by partners Neil Adleman and Charles Leveque, with support from managing associate Teresa Walker and associates Emma Riggs and David Jones and with partner David Scott advising on corporate tax matters.
On working with Harbottle & Lewis, Jamie Hendry commented: “Working with Harbottle & Lewis has been exceptional throughout this transaction. The team understood the unique nature of theatrical rights acquisitions and provided invaluable guidance as we navigated this deal. Their expertise in entertainment law, combined with their commercial understanding of our vision for Ovation Rights, made them the perfect partners for this acquisition. As we continue to build our portfolio and support artists’ legacies, we know we have trusted advisors who share our commitment to protecting and championing the works that have shaped global theatre.”
Neil Adleman added: “We are delighted to have supported the Ovation Rights team on this groundbreaking acquisition. This transaction demonstrates the significant value and enduring appeal of theatrical rights, and we look forward to seeing Ovation Rights continue to invest in artists and rightsholders as custodians of these remarkable legacies.”
On 22 July, the UK government unveiled a set of measures designed to curb ransomware attacks and protect critical public and private sector services. Following public consultation, these steps aim to dismantle the business model of cyber criminals while fortifying national resilience against cyber threats.
Ransomware, a form of malicious software, is used by cyber criminals to encrypt victims’ systems or steal data, only unlocking access upon payment of a ransom. This cybercrime costs the UK economy millions of pounds annually, with recent high-profile attacks demonstrating risks ranging from operational disruption to life-threatening consequences.
Key Proposals
Targeted ban on ransomware payments: aimed at public sector bodies, including local government and critical national infrastructure (CNI) operators, this ban intends to eliminate the financial motivation for ransomware attacks on essential services. Nearly 72% of respondents supported this targeted ban, with many agreeing it would reduce funds flowing to criminals and dissuade attacks. However, concerns about implementation, the need for clear guidance, and potential exemptions for life-threatening scenarios were raised.
Ransomware payment prevention regime: this regime would require victims to report their intent to pay ransoms, allowing the Government to assess and potentially block payments to sanctioned groups. Feedback was mixed, with 47% supporting an economy-wide approach, but concerns were highlighted around thresholds creating loopholes for attackers. Respondents also stressed the importance of guidance and support for compliance, particularly for small businesses.
Mandatory incident reporting regime: this proposal mandates victims to report ransomware incidents within 72 hours, followed by a detailed report within 28 days. It received strong backing, with 63% agreeing to an economy-wide mandatory reporting system. Respondents noted that such a regime would strengthen intelligence gathering and law enforcement’s ability to address ransomware threats. However, concerns were raised about reporting burdens on individuals and smaller organisations.
Next Steps
The Government is proceeding with developing these measures, taking into account the feedback received. Key actions include:
Publishing detailed guidance to clarify the scope and implementation of the proposals
Exploring proportional penalties and tailored compliance measures for organisations of different sizes and sectors
Strengthening victim support services, including expert guidance, operational updates, and intelligence sharing
Maintaining the proposed 72-hour reporting window for initial incident notifications
Read more about the Government’s position here and the outcome of the consultation here. If you would like more information, please feel free to reach out to one of our dedicated cyber security lawyers, or if you would like keep up to date on the latest in data protection, please subscribe to our quarterly newsletter, The Data Download, and watch our recent webinar here.
Today marks another significant change to the UK immigration rules. On 1 July 2025, the government released a ‘Statement of Changes’ to the immigration rules that take effect today, 22 July 2025.
This has given little time for individuals and companies to not only understand the changes, but to also ensure that they submit the relevant applications required prior to the changes being implemented. These changes are extremely significant for sponsored employees and companies that maintain a Sponsor Licence or intend to obtain a Sponsor Licence to employ future migrant employees.
Skilled Worker
The ‘Skilled Worker route’ allows employers to sponsor individuals that are from overseas to work in the UK, provided they meet certain requirements. Over the past few years, the government has continued to make changes to this route, particularly to the salary thresholds and the skills threshold. Given these changes, the rules have become needlessly complex and difficult to comprehend, and today’s changes have not helped the situation.
The general salary threshold for those that are applying for leave to enter the UK as a Skilled Worker or for ‘Leave to Remain’ in the UK have increased. A summary of the difference in threshold pre 22 July 2025 to present can be seen below:
Please note that if applying for settlement in the UK, the general threshold for Options A-D have also been increased to the new general threshold post 22 July 2025.
Changes to Skilled threshold
In order to assess if an individual’s role is eligible for sponsorship by an employer, the employer is required to review the role against a list of occupation codes that are provided by the Home Office as a guideline. This list is accessible and known as the Appendix Skilled Occupation List. Currently, this list incorporates RQF level 3-6 roles. However, as of today (22 July 2025), 180 occupation codes will be removed from this list, including those that are RQF level 3-5, and only RQF level 6 roles will remain. There is, however, an Immigration Salary List that provides a list of jobs where a reduced salary threshold applies to Skilled Worker visa applications. This list will remain until 31 December 2026 and will include RQF level 3-5 roles. There will also be a new list that will be known as the ‘Temporary Shortage List’ which will be reviewed regularly by the government and will only be in place until 31 December 2026. Roles listed here will be within RQF level 3-5 but can be removed at any time.
There are transitional arrangements for individuals that are already in the UK with leave as a Skilled Worker or who have applied to this route with a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) before 22 July 2025. Those that are in an occupation code that no longer forms part of the new ‘RQF Level 6 Occupation List’, but are performing roles that are in RQF level 3-5 roles, can remain employed in the UK, with the option to switch or change employers. There are, however, certain roles that are RQF level 3-5 whereby the individual must continue to work for the same sponsor.
6135 Care Workers and home carers and 6136 Senior Care Workers
Sponsored employers can no longer sponsor such individuals from overseas. Transitional provisions apply to those already in the UK under these occupation codes.
Dependants
As of today, those that are being sponsored within an RQF level 3-5 role will not be able to bring their dependant partner or child to the UK. However, if you are already in the UK with permission as a Skilled Worker within the RWF level 3-5, you can continue to extend your dependants leave or apply for ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’. Note that there are some exceptions that apply to children.
Other working routes
The Global Business Mobility Routes (GBM) and ‘Scale Up route’ will also see changes to the minimum salary threshold:
for a senior or specialist worker from £48,500 per year to £52,500
for a graduate trainee from £25,410 per year to £27,300
for a UK expansion worker from £48,500 to £52,500
‘Scale Up route’ from £36,300 to £39,100
How do these changes affect the creative industries?
The theatre industry will be significantly impacted by these changes, particularly theatre companies who sponsor actors, writers, musicians and dancers.
Starting today, employers intending to sponsor a dancer as a Skilled Worker can only do so temporarily until 31 December 2026. This applies to skilled classical ballet dancers or skilled contemporary dancers who meet the standards required by internationally recognised UK ballet or contemporary dance companies.
Therefore, post 31 December 2026, such individuals will be required to be sponsored under the ‘Creative Worker route’. This creates restrictions on theatre companies that may require the individual to be in the UK on a long-term basis due to the Creative Worker Visa only allowing someone to be sponsored for two years at a time, meaning the visa will continually need to be renewed.
Interestingly, actors, entertainers and presenters have been removed from the occupation list completely, and those already in the UK as a skilled worker under this code will only be eligible to extend their leave in the UK. Individuals from overseas will no longer be eligible to apply under the ‘Skilled Worker route’.
Further proposed changes
If the above is not enough to get your teeth stuck into, we should say that this is not the end of the proposed changes to UK immigration rules. The government are set to provide an update regarding the following:
Earned settlement and citizenship: The government is proposing to extend eligibility to settlement from five years to 10 years for more work routes. Exemptions may apply to those that are able to demonstrate contributions to the UK economy.
Study routes and graduate routes: Reforms are set to tighten the student and graduate routes aiming to prevent these pathways from being used as a means to settle in the UK. While changes to the graduate route are still under review, the proposed reforms include reducing the duration of stay under the graduate route from two years to 18 months, with the possibility of additional restrictions being implemented.
If you have any questions in relation to any of the above, please get in touch with our immigration lawyers.
After a quiet few months on the journey of the Employment Rights Bill, the last couple of weeks have seen a flurry of employment law updates. There has been a lot to unpack, so we’ve summarised the latest timeframes and changes in an update of the ‘need-to-knows’ for right now.
What’s the current status?
The Bill has been making its way through the parliamentary journey to becoming law over recent months. The Bill is now in the ‘report stage’ in the House of Lords, after which it will return for a third reading and further consideration of the proposed amendments. The latest amended version of the 318-page Bill was published on 24 June 2025.
What’s the timeframe?
On 1 July 2025 the government published its UK employment law roadmap for the delivery of changes, so we now have more certainty on implementation dates. The key takeaway is, with the phased implementation, that most changes are going to take longer than expected to become law.
Although a handful of changes will take effect shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent, most will be implemented during a lengthy phased delivery plan. Some of the most significant are:
April 2026: ‘day one’ rights to paternity leave and parental leave; ‘day one’ right to statutory sick pay and removal of earnings threshold for this; enhancement of whistleblower protection; trade union recognition and balloting changes.
October 2026: enhanced duty to take ‘all’ reasonable steps to prevent harassment; changes to the law on fire and rehire; further expansion of trade union rights.
2027: introduction of ‘day one’ protection from unfair dismissal; changes to the law on zero-hour contracts; enhanced rights for pregnant workers; statutory bereavement leave; umbrella company regulation.
What can be seen immediately is that it will take longer than expected for some of the biggest changes to become law, with key measures such as ‘day one’ unfair dismissal rights being pushed into 2027. This means more planning and preparation time for businesses to determine how best to navigate the changes in their organisation. Consultations about the proposed changes will commence shortly and we expect those to continue into 2026.
What’s new or changed recently?
On 7 July 2025, a number of proposed changes were detailed for the Bill, with some attracting considerable press attention over the last few days. We’ve outlined the most significant updates from the latest draft below, as a summary of the recent amendments. (Not all measures are mentioned in this briefing; we have focussed on what has changed in the latest version of the Bill).
For all of the categories below, it is important to emphasise that these are proposals only. They may not make it into the final Bill and are subject to change.
For those who want some further topical reading, press coverage and commentary can be viewed here.
Update: Bereavement leave for families who face pregnancy loss
A statutory right to bereavement leave has been part of the proposals from the early stages, but the latest amendments confirm that bereavement leave will be extended to a stillbirth or loss of a child in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. This has been referred to as ‘miscarriage leave’ in some press coverage and has been welcomed by many charities and campaigners.
This means that employers may see the right to bereavement leave taken up more than initially expected, given the estimated statistic that more than one in five pregnancies sadly end in miscarriage. Companies will need to update policy and practice accordingly when the time comes.
Update: A ban on NDAs (including in settlement agreements) which cover harassment and discrimination
This is a significant amend for employers to note; non-disclosure agreements and similar deals (including settlement agreement terms) will be void if they prohibit an individual disclosing details of discrimination or harassment. Confidentiality clauses may still be permissible, at the request of the employee only, although the detail of this is yet to come. What’s clear is that this change aims to make ‘cover up culture’ a thing of the past.
Of course, some clients are ahead of the curve on this, and already have a ‘no-gagging’ policy for any settlement or exit terms where there has been a complaint or claim of discrimination or harassment. For others, this will be a real step change. All employers will need to start thinking about their commitment to culture, good training and transparency in preparation for this change.
Update: Changes to whistleblowing laws
The amendments include significant changes to the protected disclosure or ‘whistleblowing’ laws, if they are passed and included in the final bill. In brief, these include changes to what qualifies as a ‘protected disclosure’, a tightening of the public interest requirement, a new offence of intentionally or recklessly subjecting a whistleblower to a detriment and a proactive duty on larger employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any protected disclosure.
This is one to watch and the finer detail of the proposed enhanced whistleblower protection, currently scheduled to become law in April 2026, still seems ‘up in the air’ at this time.
Update: The fire and rehire ‘ban’
The ban on ‘fire and rehire’ (the practice of dismissing an employee for refusing to agree to a variation of their contract and rehiring on the employer’s preferred terms) has attracted criticism that it would make it difficult for employers to make routine organisational changes where needed.
The latest proposals seek to temper the ban, in particular with a proposal that it will only prohibit ‘restricted variations’ to include pay, pension, hours and holiday. There are also proposed changes as to how the proof of financial distress (where fire and rehire is permitted) will be assessed and the consequences of unlawful dismissals in this situation, with this no longer being automatically unfair, but assessed by a reasonableness test.
The amendments importantly allow for variation clauses in employment contracts. Employers could consider checking their contract terms; if their standard templates don’t include a right to vary terms and conditions, it would be advisable to think about updating those now.
Update: New proposed rules on zero hour worker contracts
Changes to what the Government term ‘exploitative’ zero hour contracts have been a headline change in the Bill. These are casual employment contracts which do not guarantee any minimum working hours. The latest amendments water down an originally proposed ban on these contracts, so that employees can request guaranteed hours, but there is no duty on the employer to offer them. Again these are proposed amends only which may not be backed by the Government, so we could yet see a return to the more far reaching reforms for zero hour contracts as originally outlined in Bill.
The review of the parental leave system
Separately from the changes in the Bill, on 1 July the Government also launched a full review of parental leave and pay. The review will look at the whole family friendly leave system, including maternity and paternity leave, shared parental leave; adoption leave and others, and will also review the statutory pay system. We will keep clients updated as the review progresses.
We will continue to track the developments of the Employment Rights Bill and will issue further updates as the Bill gets to the final consideration stage and we have more detail on final proposals and implementation.
The UK production industry is showing cautious optimism, with increased investment into the country, despite challenges like tight budgets and Channel 4’s shift to in-house production. AI dominates discussions, with legal disputes and policy changes signalling its transformative impact.
The second edition of our UK film and TV newsletter covers key industry updates including production trends, AI developments, and further updates to the Employment Rights Bill.
HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS
South by Southwest London (SXSW)
We attended SXSW London, their debut festival in London, and were proud to partner with them as their official legal services supplier. Our lawyers were there throughout the week, attending and chairing insightful panels and talks.
Cannes Film Festival
In May, Sarah Lazarides,Peter Armstrong, Abigail Payne, Clare McGarry and Emma Riggs attended Cannes Film Festival. We caught up with clients and other contacts from around the world, attending numerous events around the Croisette, including those generously hosted by Coutts, Sargent Disc, Fintage House and Saffery. Some reports mention the bars and restaurants being less packed than usual, and of there being a feeling of frugality reflective of the industry as a whole, but we found there to be a good buzz in the air and the festival felt “in action” after a few quiet years in the post-Covid wake.
National Film and Television School
On 3 June, Clare McGarry, Octavia Henderson-Cleland and Julika Schmidt ran a negotiation workshop for talented students from the National Film and Television School. It was a lively and engaging session, on key topics which producers at all stages of their careers need to know about.
On 24 June, Ed Lane hosted a further session for students with serial TV entrepreneur Paul Sandler covering investment readiness and how an investment process works. We ended with a mock negotiation of a term sheet which included some excellent role playing from all concerned.
Indielab TV Accelerator 2025
We have been proud sponsors of the Indielab TV Accelerator for almost a decade, and the 2025 edition came to a close on 11 June.
The day began with Ed Lane, together with Tom Manwaring and Alex Reed-Brewer from Helion Partners, offering insights into the current investment landscape and how to attract investors. Ed was later joined by Harbottle & Lewis associates Katerina Capras and Minty Hamer, who covered investment readiness and the investment process.
We then all attended the closing drinks at Barclays to celebrate this year’s cohort.
BAFTA Elevate 2025/6
As part of our support for BAFTA’s Elevate programme, Ed Lane chaired a panel of indies and investors at BAFTA on 17 June.
On the panel were Nischal Randev (BBC Studios), Caroline Percy (Channel 4 Indie Growth Fund), Derren Lawford (DARE Pictures) and Ed Kellie (ScreenDog Productions).
It was a lively and insightful discussion on starting an indie and the investment journey, with some excellent questions from the floor.
INDUSTRY UPDATES
HOT OFF THE PRESS! GOVERNMENT RESPONDS TO CMC REPORT ON THE HETV AND FILM INDUSTRY
In our last edition, we reported on the CMC’s report into the state of the industry, which included recommendations of a 5% levy for streamers, a new HETV tax credit for independent TV, terms of trade for streamers, and scrapping the government’s plans to include a “data mining exemption” for copyright infringement. The government has now responded. The response dovetails with the government’s new Creative Industries Sector Plan (see article below). In short, most of the headline grabbers from the CMC report have not been agreed. Some key takeaways:
The government supports the sentiment of the CMC report and appreciates the challenges faced by the industry, acknowledging the “need to ensure the resilience of our domestic sector”.
The government has not committed to introducing terms of trade or the 5% levy on streamers, saying: “we want a healthy, mixed film and TV ecology and we welcome inward investment, including from SVoD services. One of the benefits of a mixed ecology is that producers can strike deals both with streamers, which typically involve higher upfront fees, and with PSBs, whose terms of trade mean that secondary rights normally remain with the producer”.
The DCMS will appoint a “creative freelance champion” to advocate for the sector’s freelancers within government.
Short courses in England will be introduced, funded through the Growth and Skills Levy, in areas like digital, artificial intelligence and engineering.
VAT relief on cultural activities, which would include cinema entry, has not been agreed.
The government has committed to providing its response to its consultation on copyright and AI in the coming months. They reminded readers that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 contains a number of updates and a report on the use of copyright material for AI training will be coming within nine months of Royal Assent.
No commitment has been made to analyse the benefit of an uplifted HETV Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit for domestic productions with budgets of £1 million to £3 million per hour.
£75m funding for film and TV sectors: creative industries sector plan
In June, the government revealed its £75m “Screen Growth Package” for the film and TV industry, part of its Creative Industries Sector Plan.
The UK Global Screen Fund will be increased to £18m yearly to develop international business capabilities, enable co-productions and showcase independent UK screen content worldwide.
£10m will be put towards the National Film and Television School’s facilities and training programmes, unlocking £11m in investment from industry and private supporters, including from the Walt Disney Company, the Dana and Albert R. Broccoli Foundation and Sky.
Funds are being made available to a “significantly expanded” BFI Film Academy, to open the industry to people from underrepresented backgrounds, with opportunities for filmmaking work experience and training.
£25m is going to companies in the augmented reality and motion capture technology space, to fund research and development labs, and showcase spaces.
As well as the Screen Growth Package, £150m will be given to Mayoral Strategic Authorities, to support the creation of regional screen agencies and production funds.
The true impact of the investment remains to be seen and will become clearer over time.
AI, AI, AI…
It’s been an especially turbulent quarter in the world of AI. In case you missed it:
1. Trade Unions call for an independent AI regulator. The Trades Union Congress (TUC), which represents Pact and Bectu, wants an independent regulator to be set up to manage how AI is integrated into society. The aim: a new creative industry AI taskforce to bring together creative workers, unions and technologists, transparency on AI training data, consent-based use of creative work, fair pay when creative content is used to train AI models and stronger protections against deepfakes.
The TUC has voiced strong opposition to the government’s plans to include an exemption in the law allowing AI developers to train their systems on copyrighted protected materials without permission, unless creators explicitly opt out.
2. The Data (Use and Access) Bill passes. This was passed on 11 June after much “ping ponging” between the House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Lords tried to introduce a change forcing AI companies to declare their use of copyright protected materials for the training of AI models, including transparency regarding scraping. This was rejected by the House of Commons, who said this was not the appropriate place to deal with these issues, in particular because (a) they are running a separate consultation on AI and the creative industries (the results of which we are eagerly awaiting) and (b) a specific AI bill is in the works. Sceptics might say this shows the government siding with AI companies over creatives and displaying their fear of getting left behind if the UK stifles any technological advancements of AI.
3. Major players flex their litigation muscles.
Two major cases to be aware of:
Disney and Universal sue Midjourney:
The first US majors to sue an AI company.
They allege that Midjourney has not ceased its ‘calculated and wilful’ unauthorised infringements, despite requests to stop and adopt technological measures to prevent the practice.
Subscribers to Midjourney can create images from text that are reproduced and made available for download. The studios referenced pictures of Yoda and other characters from franchises being generated through the AI tool.
An excerpt from the complaint called Midjourney “the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism”.
The studios are seeking maximum statutory damages and injunctive relief.
Getty goes to court: Getty Images’ landmark case against Stability AI officially began in June. Getty accuses Stability AI of using its copyrighted images to train Stable Diffusion, Stability AI’s system which generates images from inputs. Getty says Stability AI illegally scraped millions of images from its website. However, Getty dropped its primary copyright claim on 26 June as a “pragmatic” move, leaving the trade mark, passing off and secondary copyright infringement claims still on the table.
PACT resists changes to terms of trade
Ofcom is considering revising its guidance for PSBs set out in the Commissioning Codes of Practice, commonly referred to as the “Terms of Trade”. Their plans include allowing PSBs to seek ‘matching rights’ as well as changes regarding negotiation practices with indie producers.
Pact believes that this change would impact the balance of power between producers and PSBs, particularly within the indies sector. The union has urged its members to write to their MP to highlight what they see as a move that would hinder the ability of producers to retain and exploit their IP.
PACT/Equity negotiations
The contract negotiations between Pact and Equity for both the Cinema Films Agreement (CFA) and the TV Agreement (TVA) are ongoing. Pact sent the TVA counterproposal to Equity on 4 April and the CFA counterproposal to Equity on 25 April. Here are some highlights:
Pact is pushing back on all changes to working hours and turnaround requirements following industry feedback.
Pact and Equity are aligned that all artists should be given the first opportunity to dub in English, however, Pact has proposed some language in its response that is broad enough to allow for production exigencies.
In respect of calls from Equity to curtail customary option/exclusivity terms from series regular cast deals (which Equity believes keep actors off the market), Pact has requested that Equity provide the wording they wish to include in the TVA so they can consider this issue further.
Pact has told Equity that it would not be realistic to ban “on or about” dates from TV performer deals, but has instead proposed including block-by-block engagements within the TVA and making it clear that artists are not on first call until dates are nominated.
Equity provided initial responses to Pact’s counterclaim on 23 May and Pact was due to meet with Equity w/c 9 June to discuss the CFA counterproposal. A further meeting will be arranged for Pact and Equity to discuss AI, Special Stipulations and exclusivity clauses.
On AI, Pact has sent to Equity questions relating to Equity’s open letter on AI training and GDPR. Pact hopes that the responses to these questions will enable it to understand the basis of Equity’s AI claim and build on this to aid negotiations.
For further details regarding Pact’s counterproposals under the CFA and/or the TVA, please get in touch directly.
PACT/Equity & PACT/Bectu rates increase
Pact/Equity
From 6 April, Pact and Equity agreed a 3% interim minimum rate increase under the CFA.
These rates will remain in place until the new CFA (currently being re-negotiated – see above) is signed or for a period of six months (i.e. until Sunday 5th October), whichever comes first.
With respect to the TVA, Pact and Equity had already agreed to the minimum rates being increased by 3.5% with effect from 1 January and then by a further 3% with effect from 1 January 2026.
Rate increases for stunt personnel under the CFA and TVA remain subject to the broader ongoing negotiations between Pact and Equity.
Pact/Bectu
New rates under the Construction Crew Agreement between Pact and Bectu also came into effect from 1 April, which have been adjusted to reflect the rise in the Consumer Price Index from 2.5% to 2.6%. The Construction Crew Agreement only applies to major motion pictures (theatrical and SVOD) with production budgets in excess of £30 million.
There are nine key principles providing a baseline of good practice for how directors and producers can work together, including “the director having a right to consultation” and “the director having a right to the appropriate credit”. The Directors and Producers Forum say that the guidelines can act as a reference point to ensure the director’s role is clear and respected.
It’s chocks away for Channel 4! The news that Channel 4 plans to create a standalone in-house production business has been met with strong opinions from many quarters of the indie sector. But how significant is this shift really?
The reaction is not surprising given Channel 4’s founding mission to support the independent production sector, which it has done for over 40 years via a focus on commissioning shows from indies and allowing indies to retain all rights (i.e. it has not been interested in developing or acquiring IP).
Alongside that, Channel 4 has (to date) been prohibited from holding more than a minority equity stake in indies. Through its Indie Growth Fund (launched in 2014) it has funded and supported a host of indies, including Warp Films (Adolescence). In supporting these indies, Channel 4 was effectively acting as a venture capital fund, looking to fund at an early stage and then exit (ideally with a decent return). It has indeed exited a number of those investments, most recently Eagle Eye who were acquired by ITV Studios in late 2024.
The minority stake ‘venture capital’-style approach allowed indies to take on early stage investment and then look to sell to a wide range of potential buyers. This gave flexibility, and potentially, with enough competitive tension, a higher valuation for the business. On the flipside, often where a trade investor (like BBC Studios or Banijay) are making early stage investments, there will be a path to majority ownership built in to the deal. This deprives the indie of options later down the line.
With Channel 4’s shifting approach, the industry may have lost something pretty rare – an investor well-versed in the industry but comfortable with the founders retaining strategic control and focused on supporting indies to exit rather than looking to take full ownership or build an in-house production arm.
Only time will tell how this new, unbridled Channel 4 will operate. Will its new inhouse production arm truly be separate to commissioning, with no preferential arrangements (we hear that both teams will be in the same office space – commissions at the water cooler, anyone)? Or will its increased indie quota (up to 35% from 25%) soften the blow enough for a sector still reeling from the commissioning slowdown?
‘Sex’ in the Equality Act: impact on Film & TV
In April, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. Widely reported in the mainstream press, and generating considerable debate, we explain the judgment and how it relates to practices in the workplace.
The case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers concerned the meaning of the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) in light of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It decided that these terms refer to biological sex. This means that if someone identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the EqA, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.
The decision is an important development in the entrenched conflict between those on either side of the trans rights and gender critical debate. Unless future legislation changes the position, the judgment puts the meaning of sex in the EqA in unequivocal terms. Sex = biological sex.
So what does this mean for UK film and TV companies, who are employers or engage freelance cast and crew on productions? We’ve identified some key areas where this judgment will have an on the ground impact for clients.
Click here to read the full article by senior associate, Lucy Burrows.
Employment Rights Bill: Update
The long-awaited Employment Rights Bill is now set for phased implementation, with consultations beginning in summer and autumn 2025. As part of the government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay,” the Bill’s landmark reforms will be rolled out gradually over the coming years. Whilst delays in parliamentary approval have slowed its progress, the Bill is now seemingly moving forward.
For the film and TV industry, the most significant changes are as follows:
Reforms to expand Statutory Sick Pay to include the lowest-paid workers. Expected date of implementation (EDI): April 2026.
Granting workers day-one protection against unfair dismissal (which had been expected to take effect in October 2025). EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Banning ‘exploitative’ zero-hour contracts. EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Introducing enhanced flexible working rights. EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Employers can be reassured that the changes will not take immediate effect, with many of the reforms now expected to come into force later than originally anticipated. Further details on these policies, along with the exact timeline for implementation, will be provided once the consultations have concluded.
You can read more on our coverage of the Bill and its impact on the film and TV industry on our website.
This article was first published in the ThoughtLeaders4 HNW Divorce Magazine.
On 19 March 2025, Mr Entwistle, Ms Helliwell and their legal teams attended the Court of Appeal to make their arguments in respect of Mr Entwistle’s appeal of Francis J’s decision to hold him to the terms of a prenuptial agreement the parties had signed on the day of their wedding – save for a modest additional payment of £400,000 to meet his needs, covering a three-period of spousal maintenance, a rental budget for two years, and a car.
One of the grounds of appeal was that the size of the award was unfair relative to Ms Helliwell’s wealth, and that Francis J had not properly assessed his needs, taking into account the parties’ standard of living during the marriage.
The outcome of the appeal is awaited, so it remains to be seen whether the Court of Appeal will reconsider the assessment of Mr Entwistle’s needs, following a short marriage in which the parties bore no children, in more generous terms.
So, how does the court determine a financially weaker party’s award where a PNA exists?
In Radmacher v Granatino, it was stated that “the court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.” ‘Needs’ was identified as one factor which would most readily render it unfair to hold the parties to a PNA, as they were unlikely to have intended that it should lead to a spouse being left in “a predicament of real need, while the other enjoys a sufficiency or more”.
But, how does the court ensure that a spouse is not left in a “predicament of real need”?
Historically, this was interpreted conservatively, as “the minimum amount required to keep a spouse from destitution”, or in a “book-ended” range where the left book-end constituted a “spartan lifestyle catering for not much more than essentials”, just to the right of that left book-end. However, recently, how needs are assessed has depended on the circumstances of the case:
HD v WB (Peel J): After a long relationship with three children, the PNA was held not to meet H’s needs (awarding him only £112,000 after a six-year marriage, despite the length of their relationship). He was awarded a housing fund of £2.5m to be held on trust for W (such mechanism having been contemplated by the PNA, but only amounting to £500,000 upon the 10th anniversary of the marriage), a capitalised sum of £1.2m to meet his income needs for five years, and further sums totalling £700,000. Peel J commented that without the PNA, H would have received significantly more.
Backstrom v Wennberg (L. Samuels KC): After a six-year marriage, H received a housing budget of £6.5m in light of the PNA providing for his and the parties’ son’s reasonable housing needs to be met during the remaining 15 years of their son’s minority, such housing to revert to W at that stage. Despite scant evidence of his earning capacity and income needs, he was awarded a capitalised sum of £350,000 to meet his income needs for six years.
MN v AN (Moor J): After a long marriage, the PNA, the terms of which provided W with a Duxbury fund of £7m and a housing fund of £4.75m, was held to meet W’s needs and therefore upheld in full. Moor J commented in relation to each figure that it may have been that, absent the PNA, a Judge would have awarded a higher sum.
BI v EN (Cusworth J): The parties entered into a French marriage contract, electing a séparation de biens regime, which was upheld. This excluded sharing of the significant wealth that had been built up during the marriage, but did not prevent the English court from making a needs-based award to ensure W’s needs were met. The judge made a generous award in light of the length of the marriage and high standard of living enjoyed, her contributions to the family and the significant resources available and generated during the marriage. A similar approach was taken by Moor J in CMX v EJX. It is notable that in these cases, the French marriage contracts left the question of maintenance and needs generally to be dealt with separately (as would have been the case under French law), hence the generous awards made.
Two themes run through these cases: firstly, there is clearly no one-size-fits-all approach; and secondly, the financially weaker party’s sharing entitlement (however great it may have been) was set aside in favour of a needs-based award being made, due to the existence (and operative terms) of the relevant PNA. And, however generously those needs were provided for, they ultimately received less than they might otherwise have done had a valid PNA not been in place.
However, French marriage contracts aside, none of the above cases really and truly substantively departed from the terms of the PNA in question – which brings us to AH v BH. Peel J emphasised the latitude and flexibility available to the court to determine the receiving party’s needs and, entirely contrary to the terms of the PNA, awarded W an outright housing fund and a capitalised income fund for ten years, totalling 8% of the assets. No stepdown was awarded since Peel J was not confident that W would be self-sufficient after ten years. Key factors influencing his decision were W being primary carer of the parties’ two minor children, the fact that the PNA, which contained a clause stating that it would be reviewed upon the birth of the parties’ first child (indicating their belief that it would not be a fair document in such circumstances), and the impact on W’s financial stability and dependency of having married and had children. Whilst Peel J noted that W might have received more absent the PNA, it is arguable that, the PNA being in place as it was, had he taken a more robust approach in relation to W’s longer-term needs, she might indeed have received less.
AH v BH reflects a renewed emphasis on judicial discretion in the context of determining needs where there exists a signed agreement intending to limit the financial claims a party might otherwise have had upon divorce. It also, together with the more recent case law, contributes to the uncertainty of what orders might be made where a PNA is found to cater insufficiently for needs, leaving legal practitioners in somewhat of a predicament in advising clients on likely outcomes.
Therefore, what Mr Entwistle’s fate will be remains anyone’s guess…
“Even with paternity leave available from day one of employment, the proposals compare woefully to the paternity offerings from our European neighbours. Pre-eminent House of Lords peers have pushed for amendments for better-paid rights for fathers and co-parents. We will have to watch this space as the bill returns to the Commons, but no doubt this, like so many issues, could meet with reluctance to increase the costs of the bill’s changes any further.”
Senior associate Lucy Burrows’ article on the treatment of statutory paternity pay under the Employment Rights Bill has been published by Employee Benefits. The full article can be found here.
Employee Benefits is a UK digital publication which provides HR, reward and benefits professionals with industry news, tax and legislation updates and in-depth articles on all aspects of employee reward and benefits.
A 45-page ‘gossip’ thread about two influencers filled with anonymous abusive comments, has sparked a four-year battle to unmask the operator of the website Tattle Life.
In 2021, a couple targeted by Tattle Life users complained to the website and in 2023, commenced a case for defamation in Belfast’s High Court, obtaining default judgment and damages. Following a further court hearing this month, they publicly revealed the identity of the website’s anonymous owner, having resorted to private investigators in their effort to unmask the individual.
The website is one of many forums now offering a place where people can post purportedly anonymous “gossip” about influencers and celebrities. The practice is also popular on social media websites like Reddit and Instagram with whole sub-Reddits, threads and accounts dedicated to the practice.
Although this activity is advertised and defended online by users as mere gossip, the judge in this case found that it was anything but and said:
“They (the claimants) have both been grossly defamed and severely harassed by these posts. The destruction of reputation and the harassment has caused very severe upset and distress.”
Going on to find the website’s motivation was solely commercial, the judge added:
“This is clearly a case of unpeddling untruths for profit”.
The claimants were awarded £75,000 each for general and aggravated damages, and £75,000 each in exemplary damages making a total of £300,000. They also received an indemnity legal costs order.
It is reported that the couple also obtained a freezing order over the website’s lucrative advertising revenue of £1,077,173 in an effort to enforce the damages award against the owner, an English citizen reported to be living in Asia.
The judge criticised the slow nature of the process by which the claimants were forced to seek justice:
“This should not happen and there should be a speedy way to get to the bottom of these incidents with a view to closing these sites down and preventing such online vilification and abuse being perpetrated over a significant period of time and even being perpetrated after court proceedings have been issued.”
Those affected by abusive or harassing ‘gossip’ threads are often met with a lack of response from the sites involved, many of which are based in the US. Legal action is often the only effective recourse in these cases.
On 19 June 2025, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the “DUA Act”) received Royal Assent.
This new legislation updates the UK’s current data protection regime which comprises of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (the “UK GDPR”), the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (the “PECR”). The DUA Act will come into force in phases, expected to commence at two, six and twelve months after Royal Assent, giving you time to implement the necessary data protection related changes to your organisation.
What does the DUA Act change and how does it impact organisations?
New ‘recognised legitimate interests’ lawful basis: when you use personal data for legitimate interests, you need to balance the impact on the people whose personal data you use, against the benefits arising from that use – this is commonly done by way of a legitimate interest assessment (“LIA”). However, the DUA Act now includes a list of recognised legitimate interests which means for such interests you don’t need to complete an LIA. This list will be in Schedule 4 to the DUA Act which inserts a new annex to the UK GDPR and includes interests such as:
Sharing personal data if a public authority confirms it’s needed for their public task
Using personal data to safeguard national security, public security, or defence
Using personal data to respond to emergencies under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Using personal data to detect, investigate, prevent crime, or prosecute offenders
Using personal data to protect vulnerable individuals from physical, mental and emotional harm or neglect and support their well-being
A new ‘assumption of compatibility’: under the purpose limitation principle, if you re-use personal data you have already collected for a different purpose, you must ensure the new purpose is compatible with the purpose you initially collected it for. However, the DUA Act now includes a list of reuses of personal data that are assumed compatible with the original purpose. This list will be in Schedule 5 to the DUA Act which inserts a new annex to the UK GDPR. You can reuse previously consented personal data for a new purpose if necessary for one of the reasons below, but only if it’s not reasonable to obtain fresh consent, such as using personal data to:
assess or collect taxes or duties; or
comply with legal requirements.
‘Soft opt in’ for charities: if you’re a charity, it allows you to send electronic mail and SMS marketing to people whose personal data you collect when they support, or offer support or express an interest in, your work – providing you offered them a chance to opt out when you collected their personal data and you provide them with a chance to opt out in every electronic communication thereafter.
New cookie exemptions: the DUA Act allows you to set some types of cookies without having to get consent. Currently, you must get consent for all non-strictly necessary cookies. The list of exemptions will be in Schedule 12 to the DUA Act which inserts a new schedule to PECR, so you won’t need consent where the cookie or similar technology is for:
the sole purpose of carrying out transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network;
the non-exhaustive examples of strictly necessary purposes listed in the schedule, including security, fraud prevention, fault detection and authentication;
the sole purpose of enabling a service provider to collect information for statistical purposes about how their online service is used;
the sole purpose of enabling a service to adapt its appearance or functions in accordance with someone’s preferences; and
the sole purpose of working out the subscriber or user’s geographical location when they request emergency assistance.
Reasonable and proportional search under data subject access requests (DSARs): it makes it clear that you only have to make reasonable and proportionate searches when someone asks for access to their personal data.
Complaints: individuals have certain rights such as the right to be informed, access, object, erase, restrict and rectify their personal data. The DUA Act introduces a right for people to complain to organisations and competent authorities if they think that they’ve used their personal information in a way that doesn’t comply with the law. This is similar to the complaints procedure under Freedom of Information Requests under FOIR. It places an obligation on organisations and competent authorities to:
help people to make complaints, requiring them to take steps such as providing an electronic complaints form; and
acknowledge complaints within 30 days and advise the complainant of the outcome without undue delay.
They must also take appropriate steps in the meantime, such as making enquiries into the subject matter of the complaint and keeping the complainant informed about progress.
Using personal data for scientific research: the DUA Act makes it clearer when you can use personal data for the purposes of scientific research, including commercial scientific research. It makes the following clarifications:
People can give “broad consent” to an “area of scientific research” rather than “specific” consent – as long as: the exact purpose was unknown at the time of consent, the consent aligns with recognised ethical standards for the research area, and individuals are given the option to consent to only part of the processing.
You can re-use people’s personal data for scientific research without giving them a privacy notice, if that would involve a disproportionate effort, so long as you protect their rights in other ways and still explain what you’re doing by publishing the notice on your website.
Automated decision making – personal data: previously, decisions based solely on automated processing of personal data were restricted unless they were necessary for a contract between you and the individual, permitted by UK law or done with consent from the individual. Now, the DUA Act removes this restriction and allows an organisation to make solely automated decisions in a wider range of situations as long as it has appropriate safeguards in place – such safeguards include:
providing the individual with information about the decision;
allowing that person to make representations about the decision;
enabling that person to obtain human intervention about the decision; and
enabling that person to contest the decision.
There is no change to the restrictions around decision based solely on automated processing of special categories of personal data – they are still restricted unless you have consent from the individual or it was necessary for substantial public interest under the Data Protection Act 2018.
International transfers: various changes have been made to help make transferring personal data internationally easier. For example:
The protection standard for transferring data now requires that it “is not materially lower” than UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 standards (previously, it required that “the protection of natural persons guaranteed by the UK GDPR is not undermined”). This is referred to as the data protection test.
Schedule 7 of the DUA Act form formalises the requirement for an organisation to do a transfer risk assessment for transfers subject to appropriate safeguards (such as standard contractual clauses). It does this by saying that an organisation must meet the data protection test “reasonably and proportionately”.
There are some operational and terminology changes such as: adequacy decisions are now called “transfers approved by regulations”, with the Secretary of State required to consider specific factors for the data protection test, implement ongoing monitoring instead of a four-year review period, gain new powers to recognise and introduce other transfer mechanisms, and make minor adjustments and restructuring to existing transfer requirements.
PECR breaches and enforcement: there are changes to the rules under PECR, including:
the time period within which communications providers need to inform the ICO of a personal data breach from without undue delay or within 24 hours, to ”without undue delay and where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it”, aligning it with the UK GDPR requirement to report a personal data breach;
removing the requirement to establish that a contravention under PECR has caused substantial damage and distress; and
allowing the ICO to impose monetary penalties up to a maximum of £17.5m for certain failures to comply, aligning it with the UK GDPR monetary penalty cap.
Changes to the ICO: there are multiple changes around the structure and powers of the UK’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, such as:
The ICO can compel individuals working for or on behalf of organisations to attend interviews and answer questions if there is suspected non-compliance or an offence under data protection law.
An extension to the time for the ICO to issue penalty notices after a notice of intent from six months to six months or as soon as reasonably practicable.
Are there any new compliance requirements you have to meet?
Yes:
If you provide an online service that is likely to be used by children, the DUA Act explicitly requires you to take their needs into account when you decide how to use their personal information. You should already satisfy this requirement if you conform to the ICO’s Age Appropriate Design Code.
If you don’t already do so, the DUA Act requires you to take steps to help people who want to make complaints about how you use their personal data, such as providing an electronic complaints form. You must to acknowledge complaints within 30 days and respond to them ‘without undue delay’.
Next steps
Familiarise yourself with the changes that the DUA Act makes to data protection laws.
Map out how the DUA Act can make your organisations compliance with data protection laws easier – such as “should do” and “must do” lists.
Introduce a complaints escalation mechanism to allow individuals to complain to your organisation if they feel that the organisation has not complied with data protection laws.
Implement a data protection compliance programme accordingly.
If you would like more information, please feel free to reach out to one of our dedicated data protection lawyers, or if you would like keep up to date on the latest in data protection, please subscribe to our quarterly newsletter, The Data Download.
