Data protection and copyright news for journalists
07/07/2025
Yes, I know - Data Protection and copyright, those are someone else’s problems, not mine.
Well actually, that’s not quite correct, and journalists and publishers would do well to pay attention to the latest change in the law.
After six years of intense debate the Data (Access and Use) Bill has finally finished its long journey through Parliament, receiving Royal Assent on 19th June to become the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
The Act is intended to simplify the use of and access to personal data for U.K. data regulators whilst easing the administrative burden on those using personal data by building on existing legislation.
A few provisions take effect immediately, but the majority of the Act will come into force in stages over the next twelve months. These new provisions will amend UK data protection law as encapsulated in the Data Protection Act 2018, the UK GDPR, and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations 2003.
John Edwards, the Information Commissioner said “The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 gives organisations using personal information new and better opportunities to innovate and grow in the UK, and further enhances our ability to balance innovation and economic growth, and uphold public trust.”
Some key changes which may affect journalists and publishers include:
- Complaints
A new requirement has been introduced for data controllers to implement a procedure by which individuals are able to make complaints about alleged breaches of their data rights.
Data Controllers are obliged to take steps such as providing an electronic complaint form and must acknowledge any complaint received within 30 days. Then, without “undue delay”, data controllers must take appropriate steps to investigate the complaint and inform the complainant of the outcome.
Fortunately, the ‘journalism exemption’ is not watered down, but if recent trends are anything to go by, that will not result in fewer complaint being made.
- Data Subject Access Requests (“DSARs”)
The new Act makes specific provision around compliance with DSARs, which codifies the rules previously set out in an ICO guidance.
There’s a lot to this new entitlement, most of which seems unlikely to affect those engaged in journalism, so for present purposes, suffice to say that the Act helpfully provides that a data controller need only conduct a reasonable and proportionate search in response to a DSAR.
It’s worth mentioning one topic notably missing from the Act is the much contested “transparency requirement”, that would have forced large technology and AI companies to obtain the permission of copyright owners and pay appropriate licensing fees when accessing copyright material for AI training purposes.
These proposals were backed by high profile musicians such as Elton John and Dua Lipa. Naturally enough, musicians have featured in the press extensively, expressing their disappointment about the absence of the “transparency requirement”.
But publishers and journalists have a stake in this game as well. A lot of effort goes into researching and writing a story, and if big tech then barges in and simply lifts your written work without so much as a by-your-leave, let alone a payment, it’s dispiriting, to say the least.
But there is at least some comfort for writers, publishers, and those operating in the creative industries. Following a consultation that closed in February of this year, the Government announced its intention to address the issue of AI and copyright infringement in future legislation. Specifically, the Government has said it is committed to producing a detailed economic assessment and report on this problem, and to do so within 9 months of the legislation received Royal Assent.
We shall see!
STOP PRESS
It was announced at the end of last week that Foxglove (which describes itself as “an independent non-profit organisation that fights to make tech fair for everyone”), the Independent Publishers Alliance, and campaign group Movement for an Open Web, have lodged a joint complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority over the impact that Google AI Overviews is having on news publishers.
According to one report, the aim of the complaint is to “stop Google stealing the work of British journalists”. A representative was reported as saying the complaint was designed to address the problem of Google’s AI products “stealing journalists’ work without paying for it”, before adding “the CMA needs to act urgently to ensure news organisations have a way to opt out of Google nicking their work, without Google disappearing them from search results altogether”.
From a legal perspective, it’s interesting that the complaint to the CMA is based on competition law, not copyright. But of course, the only question that concerns the industry is this: will the complaint succeed in preventing the unauthorised use of publishers’ and journalists’ works?
As I said above, we shall see!