What does the music industry want from the future of AI – and how can the UK lead the way?
Leaders from music, technology, government and the arts met at Manchester’s Beyond The Music Festival to set out principles for managing generative AI. The Manchester Principles argue that creators have a moral and financial claim to credit and payment, and aim to guide regulation while allowing innovation to continue.
The discussions included calls for UK-owned AI models and stronger rules on how systems are governed, powered and trained. Clive Dickens proposed “Fair GPT”: models should be subject to regulation and reporting, use more renewable energy, and train on work only with consent, clear provenance and payment. Creative Industries Minister Ian Murray said 66 per cent of music creators see AI as a direct threat.
In short
- Manchester summit set out rights-based principles for AI and music.
- A proposal calls for fair governance, cleaner power and consent-based training.
- The UK could develop its own models and shape international standards.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Generative AI can draw value from music without creators’ knowledge or consent, so requiring permission, clear provenance, credit and payment would protect artists’ livelihoods and rights. Supporters argue that transparent rules and cleaner energy can make AI accountable while allowing responsible innovation, and that UK-led models could set a fair standard.
The case against
Strict consent and payment requirements could make it harder or more costly to build and improve AI systems, limiting innovation and concentrating development among larger firms. Advocates of a lighter-touch approach may argue that flexible rules can preserve experimentation and broader access, while existing rights frameworks and voluntary practices adapt to new uses.
Explained simply
Generative AI systems create new music and other material by learning patterns from existing work. They are trained on large collections of examples, which can include music made by human creators. The debate is about how that material is used and whether creators are credited or paid.
Musicians and other rights holders want a say in whether their work is used for training, while technology companies argue that AI development should be able to continue. Governments are considering how rules could protect creators and still allow new tools to be developed. UK-owned AI models and clearer reporting are among the proposals discussed in Manchester.
The issue matters to people who make, perform and distribute music, as well as to audiences and businesses using AI tools. Decisions about consent, payment and oversight could shape how creative work is made available to AI systems and who benefits from what they produce.
AI Entertainment Music Technology UK World