1 day ago
Actors Challenge UK Government Over AI Voice Protection Laws
Some actors are worried that artificial intelligence can copy their voices without permission.
Nicola Coughlan, Luke Evans and Hugh Bonneville support a campaign called Save Our Voices Now.
The campaign wants people to legally control how their voices are used.
Its organizers say current UK law does not give individuals enough protection.
The UK government already asked people for opinions about AI and copyright.
It received 11,520 responses, and 81% supported stronger protections.
The government says it will hold another consultation before deciding what to do.
Campaigners say they have waited long enough and want the law changed now.
Nicola Coughlan, Luke Evans and Hugh Bonneville backed the Save Our Voices Now campaign.
The campaign seeks enforceable copyright ownership for individuals over their own voices.
A UK government consultation received 11,520 responses, with 81% supporting stronger copyright protections.
The government says it will launch another consultation on AI-related harms and legitimate innovation.
Campaign founder Peter Caulfield and actors’ union Equity say new laws are needed instead of further consultation.
- Who
- The Save Our Voices Now campaign, supported by actors including Nicola Coughlan, Luke Evans and Hugh Bonneville, is challenging the UK government.
- What
- Campaigners are seeking enforceable copyright ownership and consent rights over individuals’ voices and digital replicas.
- Where
- The campaign is focused on the United Kingdom and has used a Parliament petition.
- When
- The campaign launched the week before the article; the government’s earlier consultation began in December 2024 and its findings were published in March.
- Why
- Campaigners say voices can be copied or exploited without consent while existing legal protections remain unclear or insufficient.
Campaigners and creators
UK government
Need for immediate legislation
Campaigners and creators
Save Our Voices Now founder Peter Caulfield and actors’ union Equity say another consultation delays action and that the law should change.
UK government
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport says consultation is needed to address harms while protecting legitimate innovation.
Responsibility for consent
Campaigners and creators
The campaign wants platforms and AI developers to carry the legal burden of obtaining consent, rather than placing that burden on individuals.
UK government
The government’s stated position is to consult on how to address AI-related harms, but the article does not specify a proposed consent framework.
Effectiveness of consultation
Campaigners and creators
Campaigners argue that a previous consultation already showed substantial support for stronger copyright protections and that a second consultation is unnecessary.
UK government
The government says the earlier consultation found no clear consensus on strengthening AI copyright laws and has announced another consultation.
Key facts
- Campaign name
- Save Our Voices Now
- Petition support
- More than 4,000 signatures
- Earlier consultation
- Launched by the British government in December 2024
- Consultation responses
- 11,520 responses
- Support for stronger protections
- 81% of respondents endorsed the need for greater copyright protections
- Government response
- The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it would launch another consultation
- International comparison
- The United States and Denmark are described as advancing legislation on rights over digital replicas
Quotes
Peter Caulfield
Actor and co-founder of the Save Our Voices Now campaign.
“A consultation is such a big fob-off. We don’t need a second consultation in as many years. We need the law to change.”
deadline.com
“The UK is very much lagging behind.”
deadline.com
Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson
A UK government spokesperson defending the planned consultation on AI-related harms.
“It is right that we value and protect human creators, and that is why we have announced we will launch a consultation on how we address these harms, while protecting legitimate innovation.”
deadline.com







