[2022] Motion 10 AI and performers’ rights

carried motion
Carried motion

Received from:

Congress welcomes the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in augmenting technological and social development – if it is used ethically and responsibly. It acknowledges the TUC’s Work and the AI Revolution reports that stress the need for essential practical and legislative safeguards to protect employees and workers, in particular their intellectual property rights.

Congress notes that a central feature of Equity’s Stop AI Stealing the Show campaign is the reform of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 to protect workers from having their image, voice or likeness used without their permission as a feature of AI-made performance synthetisation. This established process creates a synthetic reproduction of image and/or voice, often without the consent of the artist.

Congress agrees that alongside the vital role of collective bargaining, it is time for the UK government to strengthen the rights of performers by modernising copyright law. This must be a key dimension of the government’s national AI strategy.

Congress endorses Equity’s campaign and will support lobbying and campaigning efforts to achieve:

i. reform of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 to protect against non-consensual synthesisation and to introduce image rights

ii. implementation of the Beijing Treaty to enable granting of moral rights that would allow performers to combat the misappropriation of their images, likenesses and performances

iii. implementation of provisions within the EU copyright directive that enable creatives to achieve fair returns for the use of creative content in new media services.



› After paragraph 2, add: “Congress notes that attacks on performers’ rights extends to post-16 education, where employers have stored and re-used recorded materials without the permission of the creator.”

› In paragraph 3, after “performers”, add “and educators”

› After paragraph 3, add: “Congress notes that storing and reusing content without the permission of the creator could undermine the effectiveness of industrial action.”

› In paragraph 4, sub-paragraph i., after “synthesisation,” add “, the use of recordings without permission,”

University and College Union