Reforming the 1988 CDPA for the AI Era: Protecting Collaborative Creativity in Publishing
I have written about suggesting changes to the1988 Copyright & Designs Patent Act to better reflect the working processes of the 21st Century to hopefully start a wider conversation in publishing. When the CDPA laws were created in1988 - I had been setting type by hand and was still drawing grids by hand as well as doing manual paste-ups. I would probably need to issue a glossary of terms to explain these 1980s pre-computer working practices and terms. Some photographs below show the laborious work involved in creating a book - younger readers of this blog will probably assume that grids were 'generic' and hauled off the internet.
If no one knows who created something, does it still exist? If my work is erased, was I ever here?
David Salariya
Rewriting the 1988 (CDPA) for a Collaborative, AI-Powered Creative Industry
The UK's 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), although foundational, reflects the creative and technological working processes of the late 20th century, and perhaps have more in common with the 1440s invention of the Gutenberg Press - than the adoption of computer software in the late 1980's. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the increasingly collaborative ways of producing books and digital content, these laws are now showing their age, leaving gaps that disadvantage key contributors and fail to address the complexities of modern intellectual property (IP) issues. It's time to look at reforms that recognise the realities of 21st-century creativity and protect all those involved in the creative business of publishing - in print or digital.
A Collaborative Industry Needs Collaborative Protections
Publishing, like the film industry, is inherently collaborative. While writers and illustrators enjoy protections under the current copyright framework, the contributions of designers, editors, and concept creators goes unrecognised. A lack of formal acknowledgment has led to cases where the creator and designer of book concepts has been erased from their own projects, particularly during reprints or through the slightly dubious procedure named “refreshing” an older book by removing biographies and credits which tries to erases the history of the book and presnt .it as new.
Now, AI is adding another layer of complexity. Generative AI tools like Meta’s LLaMA chatbot rely on massive databases, often drawn from copyrighted works, to train their models. This practice has sparked legal battles, as shown by recent lawsuits filed against Meta for allegedly using “pirated” books from platforms like the Library Genesis (LibGen) without permission.
This intersection of creativity, technology, and intellectual property presents a stark reality: the CDPA needs to be updated to ensure fairness for all contributors and to address the transformative role of AI in content creation.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/10/mark-zuckerberg-meta-books-ai-models-sarah-silverman
What Needs to Change: Updating the Law for Content Creators in the 21st Century
1. Extend Moral Rights to Design Work
Under the current CDPA, moral rights - such as the right to attribution and protection against unauthorised alterations - apply primarily to authors and illustrators. However, designers and concept creators are excluded, leaving them vulnerable to being uncredited or having their work altered or “refreshed” without consent, particularly in non-fiction.
Proposal: Re-write copyright laws to grant moral rights to designers and concept creators, ensuring that they receive proper recognition and their contributions are respected.
Why This Matters: Without these protections, creators and designers are at risk of being erased. The revised laws must acknowledge the seismic changes that have taken place and safeguard all creators.
2. Protect Collaborative Contributions
Publishing, similar to the filmmaking industry, involves multiple skilled creatives whose combined efforts result in the final product. Yet the existing copyright laws disproportionately prioritise individual outputs, overlooking the collective nature of publishing.
Proposal: Explicitly recognise the roles of concept creators, designers, and editors in copyright law, making their contributions integral to the legal framework.
Industry Parallel: Film credits routinely include not only directors, screenwriters, and producers but a plethora of other contributors, all of whom create intangible but critical contributions. Publishing should adopt a similar model to reflect its collaborative nature.
3. Address AI’s Role in Copyright Infringement
AI systems like Meta’s Llama rely on datasets that often include copyrighted materials. Recent revelations in a US lawsuit highlight how Meta allegedly used LibGen’s pirated repository to train its AI models, despite internal concerns about legality and ethics. These practices pose significant risks to authors, publishers, and other creative professionals, as their works can be stripped of copyright management information (CMI) and used without authorization.
Modernise copyright laws to:
Regulate the use of copyrighted materials in AI training datasets.
Mandate transparency from companies regarding data sources for AI training.
Require fair compensation for creators whose works are used in AI training, modeled after existing systems like music licensing.
Why This Matters:
Generative AI poses an existential threat to creative workers and business models. Without robust legal safeguards, the exploitation of copyrighted materials will undermine the creative economy.
The Meta Case: A Wake-Up Call
The Meta lawsuit provides a stark illustration of the challenges facing the creative industry. Authors Ta-Nehisi Coates and Sarah Silverman have accused Meta of using their works without authorisation, while internal Meta communications suggest the company knowingly approved using pirated datasets despite ethical concerns.
These practices erode trust and threaten the livelihoods of creators, highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks to address AI's impact on copyright. While US courts continue to debate these cases, the UK must proactively reform its IP laws to prevent similar disputes and protect its creative industries.
Why Reform is Urgent
The current CDPA was laid into law in a pre-computer age, and cannot adequately address the digital and AI-driven realities of today. Reforming the law to:
Extend moral rights,
Recognising collaborative contributions, Regulating AI’s use of copyrighted works, will ensure that UK copyright law remains relevant, equitable, and future-proof.
Publishing like other creative industries depends on the contributions of all stakeholders. A failure to adapt will not only harm individual creators but also jeopardise the integrity and sustainability of the entire creative ecosystem.
The UK has an opportunity to lead in creating a copyright framework that respects collaboration and innovation while protecting the rights of all contributors. It’s time to act.
How do you think copyright law should evolve in the face of AI and collaborative creativity? Let me know in the comments!
1988 CDPA reform
UK copyright law updates
AI and intellectual property
collaborative publishing protections
copyright law for designers
moral rights for creators
generative AI copyright issues
Meta AI lawsuit
protecting creative collaboration
Comments