Contact | Search |

Tag: Intellectual-Property

UK Government holds off on immediate AI Copyright reform

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

The Government has published its much-anticipated Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, which follows a consultation that ran from 17 December 2024 to 25 February 2025.

The consultation received 11,520 responses from a broad range of stakeholders, including creators, rights holders, and AI developers, with widely different sentiments on how the future of copyright law should be shaped to accommodate AI.

The report is not a statement on the Government’s plans to reform the law but instead signals that it will continue to consider the questions raised by AI for stakeholders in the UK, including those in the creative industries. The conclusion of the report is that there is little the Government can do without further investigation: it identifies limited consensus amongst stakeholders and notes that the international and technological pictures are sufficiently fast moving that legislating at this stage would be premature. This is similar to the conclusion that the Government reached after its prior consultation on AI (launched in 2022).

Although the report is inconclusive on what the future will look like, the fact that the Government has no plans to pursue a broad-brush text and data mining exception (TDM) in the near future is a win for IP rights holders and the creative industries more broadly. The detailed analysis provided by the Government also gives some insight on the direction of travel and will assist in any action that those impacted by AI may want to take to shape the future of copyright law in the UK:

The Government believes that rights holders should be “fairly remunerated” for the value added to the AI supply chain but, for now, there will be no new copyright exception for AI training:

The Government has ditched its previous preferred approach of a broad TDM exception with an opt-out mechanism. This is following strong opposition from the creative sector. The Government plans to gather further evidence and monitor developments before deciding whether and how to act. Rather than legislative intervention, the Government’s immediate focus is on developing best practice around transparency of training inputs, which it sees as a prerequisite for both rights enforcement and a functioning licensing market. The Government aims to test commercial models for licensing as part of the “Creative Content Exchange” announced last year, and plans to launch its operational pilot platform by Summer 2026.

The report also offers a summary of the alternatives to a broad TDM exception, which were put forward by industry respondents to the consultation. These include a “focused exception” to copyright that would support commercial science and research (an extension of the existing non-commercial research exception), or a public interest exception that would permit AI tools to ingest copyright content for the purposes of detecting harm. The Government is clear that any exception would only apply to material that had been lawfully accessed (i.e., not pirated) and suggested that – if such an exception were to be brought into law – it might include a statutory remuneration model for rightsholders.

Computer-generated works protection likely to be scrapped:

The Government states that its preferred approach would be to remove copyright protection for wholly computer-generated works with no human author, while retaining protection for AI-assisted works where a human has contributed creatively. It says that this is consistent with the principle that copyright “should incentivise and protect human creativity”. This reflects the fact that the majority of respondents were in favour of scrapping the provisions.

The Government is to consider merits of introducing a “personality right” to combat digital replicas:

The report identifies digital replicas (i.e., AI-generated imitations of a person’s voice or likeness) as an area where existing copyright and performers’ rights provisions are inadequate. The Government intends to “explore options” to combat the risks of impersonation for both artists and the general public, including whether creating a new “personality right” may be the most appropriate step. In the meantime, the report acknowledges that more well-known artists may be able to protect their voice or likeness via the tort of passing off or via registered trade marks, but for lesser-known artists and the general public, this will be insufficient.

If you’d like to read the full report, it is available here: Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.

If there’s anything raised by the Government report that you’d like to talk about, don’t hesitate to get in touch.

AI, deepfakes and the protection of personality rights

Posted on by Anna Weeden

Increasingly, AI is being used to generate digital replicas, also known as “deepfakes”, of real-life individuals. This is often for commercial use, including on social media, to promote products and services. This is of particular concern for actors and celebrities, whose images and likenesses are widely available and accessible online, meaning that there is an abundance of source material for AI systems to draw from.

In December 2024, the UK Government launched an “AI and Copyright” consultation. The Government sought views from the industry on whether “personality rights” legislation should be introduced, or if existing performers’ rights legislation should be amended in the UK to give individuals greater control over how their likeness or voice is used. The Government recognises that other countries have taken action, or proposals have been made, to address this issue. For example, in the United States, two bills were enacted in California in 2024 to protect performers regarding the use of digital replicas imitating an individual’s voice, image or personal attributes without consent (California Assembly Bills 2602 and 1836). In Denmark, a bill was proposed allowing individuals to own copyright over their physical likeness which includes face, body and voice.

There were over 11,500 responses to the Government’s AI and copyright consultation from a range of parties including creators and right holders, developers of AI models and applications, academics, researchers, cultural heritage organisations, and legal professionals. The Government will be submitting a full report and economic impact assessment of its consultation before Parliament on or before 18 March 2026.

Whilst it is currently unclear whether or not specific personality rights legislation will be introduced into UK legislation to protect an individual’s likeness or voice from being digitally replicated by AI, it is worth bearing in mind that there is a patchwork of existing civil rights in the UK that may be relevant to the use of digital replicas without the consent of the real-life individual. Enforcing these rights in the UK civil courts in the context of AI digital replicas is, however, currently untested.

The rights include:

  • Trade marks. A UK trade mark registration gives the holder the potential to sue for trade mark infringement in respect of signs that are similar or identical to which the trade mark is registered. A real-life individual may wish to register a trade mark using a portrait of their face to give them the potential avenue of bringing a trade mark infringement claim when a digital replica of their face is used without consent by an AI. Well-known figures have sought such trade mark registrations. For example, Jeremy Clarkson has recently obtained a UK registered trade mark comprising two photo portraits of his face. This approach has also been taken in other jurisdictions, for example Dutch models Rozanne Verduin and Yasmin Wijnaldum have registered portrait photos of their faces as EU trade marks.
  • Passing off. If the public is misled into thinking a real-life individual has endorsed a product or service via a digital replica, the tort of passing off may be helpful to bring a stop to what the digital replica is doing.
  • Misuse of private information. If the real-life individual can establish that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in the replica (which may, depending on the circumstances, include private events, or intimate scenes etc), then this tort may be helpful in relation to any unauthorised publishing of such information via the digital replica.
  • Data protection. Data protection legislation may also be helpful to prevent the misuse of personal data (which may, depending on the circumstances, include an individual’s likeness/voice) that has been processed by the digital replica’s handler.
  • Defamation. If a digital replica uses the real-life individual’s likeness/voice in such a way that causes the individual serious harm, the individual may have grounds to sue for defamation.

For now, the Government’s upcoming report on the consultation is due to be published by 18 March 2026 and is eagerly awaited by practitioners and the creative industry. It is almost guaranteed to encourage more debate on the issue of an individual’s personality rights in the UK.

Consultation on reforms to the UK designs framework

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has launched a consultation on reforms to the UK designs system.

Acknowledging the UK’s design sector as leading force in creativity and innovation, the aim is to create a designs regime that is simple, effective and capable of adapting to the challenges of the digital future. The IPO is inviting responses by 27 November 2025.

For businesses involved in design, the outcome of the consultation could have far reaching consequences.

Key points covered in the consultation

  • Whether registered designs should be subject to searching and substantive examination. The government’s preferred option is a two-stage system under which designs would first receive partial registration, with full registration and enforceable rights only granted following a search.
  • Whether the current unregistered design regime is too complex, including the overlap with copyright. While the government’s stated preference is to retain the existing multiplicity of rights to protect both aesthetic and functional designs, it is also canvassing views on the potential consolidation of these rights into a single system and reconsidering the duration of protection.
  • Whether copyright protection for works of artistic craftsmanship should be abolished, with the government’s preference being to retain this protection, ensuring genuinely artistic and handcrafted works remain safeguarded.
  • How to clarify the registered designs system so that it covers animated designs and graphical interfaces more effectively, perhaps by allowing video files to be included in application.
  • With the rise of AI generated designs in mind, whether the existing protection for computer generated designs remains suitable, and how it interfaces with the requirement for originality.
  • Whether UK disclosure rules for unregistered designs should be adjusted to address the lack of mutual recognition with the EU and reduce complexity for businesses seeking protection in both territories.
  • Whether criminal sanctions for design infringement should be introduced.

The outcome of the consultation could have very significant implications for design-led businesses, especially as some of the proposed options could strip away valuable design protections which offer flexibility as enforcement tools.

Harbottle & Lewis advises Amdax on its acquisition of a strategic stake in Custodiex

Posted on by Julia Krol

We have advised Amdax, a Netherlands-based digital asset service provider, on its acquisition of a strategic stake in UK-based Custodiex, a specialist in quantum-safe cold storage solutions for digital assets.

Founded to provide cutting-edge custody infrastructure for financial institutions, Custodiex has established itself as a key innovator in the digital asset custody sector. The Manchester-based company’s quantum-safe solutions are designed to be scalable and future-proof, and meet the stringent international ISO 27001 security standard. The transaction enables Amdax to enhance its comprehensive digital asset platform.

Our team was led by partner Tom Macleod and managing associate Rosie Marston, with support from managing associate Katerina Capras and associates Elizabeth Compton and Matthew Shannon. Partner Yvonne Gallagher and associate Elisabeth Davies advised on employment aspects, partner Shireen Peermohamed and associate Samuel Flack advised on IP matters and senior associate Matthew Stephenson advised on property law matters.

On working with Harbottle & Lewis, Martin Cernohorsky, Amdax Head of Legal, commented:

“Working with the Harbottle & Lewis team was a great pleasure. Their broad range of expertise and professionalism proved invaluable in navigating throughout the twists and turns of this deal. From the start we were in good hands. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with Harbottle & Lewis.”

Tom Macleod added:

“We are delighted to have supported Amdax on this strategically significant acquisition. The combination of Amdax’s regulated platform with Custodiex’s innovative custody technology creates a compelling proposition for institutional clients across Europe. We look forward to seeing the continued success of this partnership as the digital asset custody market matures.”

Shireen Peermohamed awarded three individual rankings by IP Stars

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

Partner and head of our intellectual property group Shireen Peermohamed has been recognised by IP Stars in three categories in its latest rankings, including its global list of the top 250 women in IP for 2025.

Shireen has been given the following rankings:

  • Top 250 women in IP 2025
  • Trade mark star 2025
  • Transactions star 2025

IP Stars, part of the Managing IP media group, is a specialist guide covering legal practitioners who deal with contentious and non-contentious intellectual property issues. Its rankings assess and rank law firms and practitioners globally in a range of IP practice areas. Its list of top 250 women in IP recognises senior IP practitioners from more than 50 jurisdictions across the world, who consistently go above and beyond for their clients and firms.

This recognition follows the firm’s and Shireen’s recently awarded ‘Recommended’ status by WIPR.

Click here to view the full rankings on the IP Stars website.

Harbottle & Lewis and Shireen Peermohamed awarded recommended status by WIPR

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

We have been awarded ‘Recommended‘ status by World IP Review (WIPR) in their UK trade mark rankings for the second year running. Shireen Peermohamed, partner and head of our intellectual property practice, has also been recognised as a ‘Recommended’ individual for non-contentious IP work.

These rankings recognise the leading law firms and practitioners in the UK’s trade mark landscape. They cover non-contentious work, including trade mark filing, prosecution, strategy, and portfolio management, and contentious work, encompassing trade mark litigation, dispute resolution and enforcement. Those ranked consist of a mix of traditional law firms, specialist IP boutiques and attorney firms.

To read the full list of rankings, click here.