AI & Consent Special with Addison Rae, Dua Lipa and Taylor Swift featuring Dr Hayleigh Bosher

0:00The music industry is on the shores of a revolution. That's the kind of thing that you hear online, often written by AI bots. And there's often the, well, this is bad, but this could be worse kind of framing to everything. So I thought today, as the UK government have pushed back their AI review, which was quite surprising because there was a massive consultation done, a little bit like in the previous episode where we talked about the consultations around the AI. ticket touts and i was hoping that as things started to move along we would do a few episodes to talk about the changes to the law that's needed what artists are asking for and how you as fans can put pressure on people in the uk and around the world in order to ensure that the music we love is protected and as fans we're not just getting a feed of playlists that are slop filled because the word slop is something that's been used a lot around AI.

1:03Spotify have had songs very high up in its charts, getting millions and millions of plays that have not been made by humans, but have been made by machines. And often as audiences, we're not even aware that that's the case that's happening. So in this episode, I thought I'd try something a little bit different. And I really wanted to go back to the fundamentals and the foundations of copyright and the sort of double and triple standards that are involved with AI. So I thought I'd invite back one of my favourite guests from the first season, Dr Hayley Bosher, who's about to release the second edition of her book, Copyright in the Music Industry, A Practical Guide to Exploiting and Enforcing Rights.

1:41I will pop a link to that in the description because it's coming in June and it's really great. And it's got an introduction, I think, a forward from Tom Gray from the band Gomez, who's also very senior at the Ivers, who have the big Ivers awards coming up. Hayley also hosts the Whose Song Is It Anyway podcast, which had some episodes co-hosted by Judge Jules. Yes, the club DJ is also a lawyer and an expert in copyright. But anyway, Hayley is so good at explaining things. So I thought I'd pick three big stories. And Helena and I have had a bit of a chat about like, how does this work here but not here?

2:20And things like Dua Lipa taking on Samsung for using a picture of her on one of their boxes. there's a story of Taylor Swift trademarking herself and then a story of Addison Rae asking I mean asking the bare minimum Ice used her music on one of their promo videos without permission without seeking consent and she's asked for those videos to be taken down we were surprised to find that they haven't been so in this episode we will get into all these topics and how they relate to AI and how copyright is there and training data is this weird thing where you stick information in as a source material, as the kind of ingredients for recipe, and you can output other things.

3:04So the consent of what goes into that blender to be created into music is really, really important. The sounds, the ideas, the lyrics, everything, it's also the voices and the likenesses. And I think that's the thing that we talk about a fair bit in this episode. And as always, The Drannin Sound Podcast is brought to you in partnership with Kobuz, the ethical music streaming platform. And in this context, I think it's important to say that it's very, very, very, very unlikely that you will get AI in any of their playlists. Because rather than being served to you by algorithms, they have human curators who are great at picking music.

3:40And if you go on their homepage, there's a mixture of jazz and interesting big new releases. And they find often really interesting small new releases as well. So as a music nerd, it's a great kind of feeling to go to a music streaming platform that feels much more like a record shop where there's people that love music, putting things to the fore. So if you go to dranninsound.org forward slash playlist, you can hear the companion playlist to go with this week's edition of the playlist, which is going to be my little refresh of the tracks of the year so far. and also you can get yourself a 30-day free trial to Cobuzz to give it a go, hear what the fuss is about with people saying about the music quality being that bit better than the other platforms and also paying artists a little bit more.

4:23Anyway that is enough of a message from our partners, I will be back at the end with a few quick thoughts. This is the Drowning Sound podcast and this is our conversation with Dr Hayley Bosher with Helena Wadia who has done so much great research to help this episode come together. So hopefully you will learn a lot. And if you do, let us know and ping it to a friend and all those kinds of things. Speak to you at the end.

4:59Hayley, welcome back to Drowning Sound podcast. I think you're only the third guest that's return to the podcast out of 78 episodes. And I listened back to our chat from, I think it's three years ago, after Jeremy Hunt announced a ridiculous amount of money being invested in AI, and nothing's really changed. So I would love to say that all the problems we discussed last time have been addressed. But your way of explaining what AI was to me back then really, really helped me understand the mess that we've wandered ourselves into. So could you just very, very, very quickly remind our listeners who you are?

5:43You are Dr. Hayley Boshar. You have a poster in the background for those listening. They obviously can't see about your podcast and you are an expert. So do you want to fill in the gaps in that sentence? Well, thank you so much for having me. I feel quite honoured that I'm a returning guest. And yeah, you've caught me on set because I am in the middle of recording the fourth season of my podcast, Whose Song Is It Anyway?, which will be out in June alongside the second edition of my book, Copywriting the Music Industry. So I am an academic by trade. I'm an intellectual property expert at Brunel University, and I'm also a consultant in law and policy in the creative industries.

6:25You're simply overqualified for this conversation. or perfectly qualified as maybe it should be um and helena um we have swapped a few notes but um i sent you a video of lambrini girls before this which were dropping to the podcast um what did you make of their view and the the line that really stood out to me which was at the start um which was ai is going to be the thing that kills art entirely was um what they said do you think that's true i honestly couldn't agree more i don't want to agree because i want to have some kind of hope that maybe there is a way to navigate through this ai cultural uh landscape but everything that phoebe from lambrini girls spoke about in that clip my god i just yeah i agreed i agreed so much especially there's this thing right that like everything is so rubbish and what we have is like the human ability to create art and to like be weird and to make weird things and to use our brains and our creativity and why would we want that to be stamped out I don't know I've got a really negative view of it and I'm hoping Hayley can like maybe bring some uh positivity and nuance into that could you we do no i have to okay i don't want to agree either and i'm just an optimist by nature so i want to believe that we will come out of this the other side at some point realize that we've gone we've taken a wrong path here and i think there is still hope maybe it's not as existential some people like oh the horse has always bolted and i say the same thing about about um the horse is already bolted sorry and I say the same thing about law as this is that but we're making the decisions like people human people and law is just human made and we can make it different we can change things so I am holding out hope but I do agree with everything that's said in that video in the sense that and I think that if you go back to the previous episode I don't haven't listened to it but I can guarantee that I said this in that episode because I have been going on about this for literally years that I'm like the same as you humans make amazing things we make great music art film we don't need AI to interfere with that and I think that yes AI can do reportedly amazing things in like medicine and aerodynamics like I had a thing that it was gonna help less turbulence on flights and I'm like great sign me up for that and I do know people who use it as part of their work, like to ease their admin.

9:21And I'm like, fine, if that makes your life easier. But in creativity, it's not about making the process easier. That doesn't make great art. We don't sit down to create something and want the process to be seamless. It has to be gritty and it has to be difficult. That's part of what makes something beautiful. This is really, really my biggest problem with AI is this. I think creativity stems from this, like human to human contact, right? It's working with people to make something amazing, or at least working with like everything that makes you human to make something amazing. But I really worry about AI because for example, the other day I was at a restaurant with a couple of friends and one of them was like, oh yeah, we could ask chat GPT what the best thing is on the menu.

10:13and I was like well first of all don't get me started on why we should not be using chat GPT cough cough it helps to fund Donald Trump's administration but even putting that aside which is a big thing to put aside I was like yeah or we could ask the waiter what the best thing is on the menu right or we could have that human to human contact what why do we why are we so scared of that why do we want to push that down we're the people that need to protect that also what is best because we're going to have completely different tastes like and like for instance if all an algorithm can do is tell you the cold play are good like i don't want good i want great and what i think is great a lot of people think is terrible and i think that we've fooled ourselves into thinking these things are smart because for me the thing that it's really good at is pattern recognition so sometimes I will use Claude with a bunch of notes where I'm like there's something that connects all these thoughts and it spots a pattern I hadn't just and it just turns up a notch a messy thought which is sometimes useful and that's just pattern recognition that's augmenting my intelligence rather than artificially regenerating it and recreating it and I think that in some of the topics we're going to talk about today, I think that I really want to understand the consent of the training data because every music fan I speak to is like, this is really bad, right?

11:46It's taking all the music and it's making music with it. The amount of money that's going into platforms like Suno, the amount of deals that are being done with major labels and all the other kind of music generation platforms like Spotify is constantly full of AI songs at the top of its charts and its only way of addressing that is to put a verified tick and i think if twitter taught us anything a verified tick is pretty worthless um i don't know how i managed to get to elon musk but there we are everything comes back to i mean they're literally in court right now aren't they arguing and like also i'm pretty sure he is AI.

12:27Yeah. Has anyone actually ever met him? Is he just a robot in a skin suit? I was just going to add to that, that that's all not that's not you said that AI is good at pattern recognition. I would go further and say that's all AI is. It's just a pattern recognition software with a lot of hype and tech bros behind it making a lot of money through the hype and through investments. it is not people think that you can go there for information it's not google it's not a search engine it's a pattern recognition software so it ingests whatever you put in the database of information and then it tries to predict based on the patterns that it recognizes in that data set so as in a simplest in the simplest form that's all it is is pattern recognition and i think going back to what you were saying about creativity, when we create something as a human, we might look around us at other artists that inspire us, but we don't just stick to one data set.

13:31So we don't only take inspiration from music. We also read books and watch films. And then we transform our life experience and our traumas. At one of the protests, one of my favorite signs that I saw was like, AI doesn't have childhood trauma. And I'm like, you couldn't say it better because AI doesn't generate from such a wealth of sources that a human does that in a way someone said it so brilliantly to me the other day that you can track the process of AI generation because it only comes from the data input whereas you actually can't track human creativity you might be able to point to certain points of inspiration in the creative process.

14:13You can't track the entire things, because it will also be subconscious and from childhood memories and from places you've been and people you know, it's just way more complicated in a good way that I think we need to not oversimplify the power of human creativity by comparing it to what AI does. Yeah, and exactly what you're saying about AI and information. I mean, I have seen this in journalism. We did an episode of my news podcast, MediaStorm, about the impact of AI on journalism. And I mean, it is very telling about the state of our information economy today. Quality of information has just become so secondary to the quantity of information.

14:59And there are, yes, so many hypothetical fears about AI, but one that is in no way hypothetical is the damage it does to truth and i mean we saw honestly you know plugging my episode i know but we should listen to this because um we essentially discovered that not only was a story that made it to the front page of the times not uh true not a real story it came from a AI generated press release. But the person who pitched it was also not real. The person who pitched it was an AI robot. So there's some wild stuff happening out there that is really, really cutting down like investigative, informative and indispensable content.

15:54Was that story the one that Hannah Fry's agent managed to get into the news? she started a company and it's she started one of those um I've gone what the bot's called now she's got a really good youtube video that I'll link to in the notes but she talks about how of its own accord it started emailing journalists asking the journalists to do coverage and saying the angle to the story is I'm actually the AI bot messaging you isn't this a good good angle for a story oh my gosh no it wasn't that this was about a royal cleaner that cleans Kensington Palace that was just completely made up. Wow. The royal, the sovereign AI, as people are already calling it, which is actually one of the funding names that the government have got for money that they are pouring into AI.

16:44But we're not going to get too much into what Labour and the UK government is and isn't doing because they did a big consultation and I'd planned to do a series of podcasts about AI and then they pushed back the consultation, which is pretty similar to our episodes about ticket touts and how that's being kicked down the road. And probably by the time this episode comes out, I don't even know if I can confidently say who the Prime Minister will be. And it's only a few days until it's published. But what I wanted to talk about today was there was three different stories, which I think really wrap up some of the contradictions and double standards.

17:20And I think double standards is a kind of underlying theme of this podcast anyway, of why is this one thing okay here but not there and in these three cases three of the biggest artists in the world making some of the most important music of the 21st century and all three of them have legal cases which on the face of them are like of course they should get paid for the thing that they're trying to do um but if it was an ai using it we wouldn't it would just be oh no that's training data and so I guess Hayley one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is because I actually can't understand how some of this happens in the first story is Addison Ray who made one of the records of last year it's got this great song called Diet Pepsi and Ice the Gestapo as some people call them for Trump in America that are going around hoarding up illegal immigrants many of which are actually u.s citizens with no reason to be thrown into a back of a van um they used one of her songs on one of their social media clips and not only did they do that they've done it with loads of other artists and it seems to be part of a kind of rage bait approach to um posting where they just use people's music without their consent so that the artist gets kicked back for providing their song the artist said no i didn't the fan bases get annoyed it drives the algorithm and um their clip gets talked about across the media even though it's just like a promo ad for ice which is not the um so yeah like promoting the immigration and customs enforcement i.e people who are literally killing people of color and and non-people of color across uh across America it's yeah it's absolutely wild that I mean honestly some of these like AI promo videos are absolutely unhinged so um yes so Hayley my question for you is the tradition in the industry is if you want to use music on your advert or on your clip you go to the person that's made the song you go to the record company and you go to the publisher and you license it as a sync so why is the US government just not doing that they're not asking for any consent and just whacking it on their videos?

19:45I think the answer is because they just don't give a shit. Like they don't care. I don't think that there's a legal answer for it. And there's actually a whole Wikipedia page of a list of all of the times that Donald Trump has illegally used music in his campaigning without permission and then been sued for it. Like that's how much he doesn't care about it and I think he sets the tone for organizations such as ICE. Hang on one second breaking news Donald Trump doesn't care about consent. Exactly we're not special in copyright he doesn't care about consent across the board and yeah I think that it's not funny your comment is funny but it's not funny that he doesn't care about consent and um with ice i like you said it's a it's part of their strategy i mean the fact that they even need to do that tells you a lot about it but from a legal from the copyright perspective yeah what they're doing is illegal you need a license if you want to sync music to an advert that's as simple as that there's no reason why they would be getting way with it.

20:59We know that there are limited copyright exceptions in different countries. They look different, but what they're doing doesn't fall under fair use, which is what it would be under American law. So yeah, it's just a flagrant disregard of the law. And as you said, that's not limited to copyright, unfortunately. So what I found interesting was that, so the ICE and the US Department of Homeland Security, their X account, their Twitter account, used this Addison Rae song Diet Pepsi on their video. And then I get and then it was seemingly removed from X. And it was replaced with a message that said, this media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.

21:43So it seems as if Addison Rae put in a copyright complaint, and it got taken down. But as of yesterday, I saw that that video with Diet Pepsi still on it is still up on Instagram. So it seemed to work for X and not work for Instagram. Why is that and what's going on here? So all social media platforms operate their kind of own self-regulated takedown and notice and takedown system. There is law that underpins that, but the way in which they manage those complaints and requests from copyright holders is different depending on the different platforms so youtube is different to instagram and facebook or meta whatever it's called them so they're showing my age uh and twitter or x so the the difference will be simply the process but also like the levels of corruption because maybe they saw the copyright complaint and decided no we'll just let them or they didn't see the complaint or you know there's there's different reasons why they might have allowed it to stay up but it's it's not in my view what the video requires permission from the copyright holder and it they don't have that so what they're doing is copyright infringement the notice and takedown system is supposed to enable copyright holders to enforce their rights on online platforms and the fact that the video hasn't been removed is highly suspicious because it clearly is using the song without permission.

23:22So it's obviously an ineffective notice and takedown system in general, or there's been specific permission provided by the platform for them to continue to do that. Not to get All Antiques Roadshow, but how much money do you think Alison Ray should get for that song being used? I don't think that it's about money though, is it? She doesn't want that video being that video using her song because she doesn't agree with the politics. And I think this is something that copyright is not just about money. It is about money and you do it. It does enable you to get paid. But a lot of the time, what's more important about having copyright in your creative work is the control.

24:01Like you get to decide what happens to that song or not. and in this situation the law's being disregarded and she hasn't had the choice whether that song's being used and as you said earlier it's her maybe it doesn't align with her own political views that's one thing but then there's also the backlash from fans and people maybe assuming so there's this also detrimental reputational kind of aspect to it as well so I think really the harm is about the loss of control more than financially but in general sync licensing to advertising is very lucrative is it's a very good way to earn money from your copyright in your music I have no idea what in that context because I'm not talking ice is not something that I would consider in that context uh but just in general if it was an advert for like a product or a service in like a commercial setting, then yeah, advertising is very lucrative.

25:07Like sync licensing is very lucrative for copyright holders. It can be like 20 to 100, 200 grand kind of depending on where it's used and how it's used. But like with the artists I work with, like in their publishing deals, we can put like these songs can't be used in these scenes without seeking permission. Obviously for most things, they get permission from the artist anyway um but like for instance you can put online gambling it's not something you could use your use your music with um violence against women is something where you don't want the music being used say in film scenes or something like we just had something come back from a film that's coming out soon and they want to use the track and they said there's violence in it and they said but it's just male male violence we're like okay fine we accept yeah we're fine men men can do it um but yeah the the other factor is it depends on the advert and depends on the product or service but it also depends on who you are as the person who with the creative work so obviously if it's a number one hit song then it's gonna you can charge more money for that and it can be you know in the millions um if it's a song that you made just for syncing that's not actually released it can also be different if it's tailor-made like people might pay more for that it depends on the context and the budget but um yeah it's a whole it's a whole range depending on who you are and what it's being used for so you've preempted my next question which was why didn't they just use ai slop music because surely that's good enough and why did they not go to somewhere like epidemic sound where it's just like a library where you can license music so a lot of music you hear on podcasts has just been written for a library and someone's been paid like 900 pounds or something for a song and then it just gets used as many times as they want one of the issues in um liz pelly's book about spotify was some of these sound libraries tracks end up on playlists on spotify and they don't have to pay as much royalties on like their sleep playlists and stuff because it's music they don't have to pay every time it's streamed and stuff so there's lots of complicated things but I mean if AI music's so good why is it not good enough for ice?

27:22I mean I don't presume to know what they were thinking about any of their decisions let alone why they decided to do this but I think that it's probably what you said earlier to they're deliberately doing it for the clickbait and rage bait I imagine but you know I don't know and I agree I think I get so angry if I'm listening to a playlist and then I know it's an AI song because the lyrics are appalling. And that's usually the thing that sticks out to me the most. And I just think it's so ironic that, yeah, there's all this hype about AI music and then you hear a song that's made by AI and it is slop, it's just awful.

28:06And I think even if it was good, like even if it was, if someone played me a song and I didn't know, you know, it improves to a point where I maybe don't know the difference, I still don't personally want that I'm not interested in a song made by an algorithm I want music made by people and I think going back to consent for me as a listener I don't I want I wish I could press a button on my streaming platform to be like don't play me AI music I'm not interested in that I don't consent to you sloppifying my playlists and giving me I don't want it I want actual human music and I think as consumers we should be able to decide like what's coming through uh on your because you're paying you know for a subscription I pay for a subscription to human made music and maybe other people maybe they like it and that's that's their choice but for me I want to be able to decide that I only want to listen to human music and I think that the platforms should allow us to do that.

29:10You know what else is ironic is like the Trump administration is so obsessed with saying that like all of these artists support them and like creating their alternative Super Bowl halftime show for their like MAGA artists but then they never use any of that in their ICE videos. They never use any of those songs in ICE videos. They're still just like completely obsessed with using Addison Rae and Taylor Swift and Sabrina a carpenter. Not to do a free ad for our sponsor, but Kobaz don't have AI music on their playlist because it's all made by humans and compiled by humans. So it's unlikely you'll ever find an AI track on there, which is why we like them and why we decided to partner with them.

29:53So Hayley, it sounds like you might have to get off of Spotify. I don't want to send you the episode about why. I'm not on Spotify. Oh, okay. Whereabouts are you hearing AI music? On Apple Music. Not that's much better than Spotify. But, you know, I've been thinking about switching, but honestly, I'm so heavily invested in, you know, when you've spent years and years, I've had Apple Music since like day one. So I've got all these playlists and stuff that I've invested, but I know that one day I'm just going to have to move on. I mean, I do, I say I don't use Spotify. Like you can listen to my podcast on Spotify.

30:26I've just realized saying that you use Spotify is like an insult now, isn't it? Yeah, it is, it is. Oh, it is, it is. Also, there are tools to help you move your playlist over. Oh, OK. Good to know. Thank you.

30:44Hi there. It's Emma here. I'm Gay Crash in the podcast to quickly tell you about the Drowned in Sound newsletter. Every Wednesday, I invite myself into your inbox, with permission, of course, to share opinion writing and resources, tell you about cool things that you should be involved in within the world of music activism etc i also bring track of the week and a little bit of hopeful news for you because we all know that the news cycle can be grim at the best of times drowned in sound newsletter every wednesday in your inbox sign up now

31:27um should we move on to our next story yes do you want to set up which one should we go for taylor or jewa who do you want next well i kind of think that the taylor swift story we've sort of it leads quite well from what we've been talking about because clearly taylor is uh also just like us worried about AI because she has decided to trademark herself I suppose you can say to I guess try and fight against more AI fakes she has her likeness has been used without permission on numerous occasions by Meta's AI chat box in pornographic images that circulated on the internet but also I think on Grok, which is again bringing up Elon Musk's ex's AI function.

32:25And also exactly what we were just talking about. Donald Trump also shared AI generated images of Taylor Swift inaccurately suggesting that she had endorsed him in the run up to the election. So yeah. Wow. So I guess the question is really, is this something do you think Hayley that we're going to see more artists doing soon trademarking themselves and actually is that a solution how strong is a is a trademark it's a great question so she's the second person the second American celebrity who's done this recently and explicitly like for the reasons of protecting against deep fakes um it was Matthew McConaughey McConaughey I can never say his second name that's why I don't want to say it what's his name mcconnor is it mcconaughey i would say matthew mcconaughey mcconaughey mcconaughey anyway that guy so he did it first um and then now now taylor's done it and i think um it's a desperate move for celebrities who have who are already in a position where they're trading off their name and likeness um to try to boost their kind of intellectual property toolbox that it will give them the best possible protection in this situation I actually don't think it is a great solution I think what we need is stronger personality rights then because that's specifically for giving rights in our likeness our voice and like the way that we look and I think interestingly it goes back to this theme of consent because we have human rights in some countries in theory um for our physical bodies and in the digital world we don't actually own the digital versions of ourselves you don't have any ownership over a deep fake version of you without this personality right there are certain legal avenues you can take in specific circumstances and trademark is one of them that would help you but honestly I think that we should all have personality rights not just Taylor Swift so I think that the law needs to be updated because of deep fakes because it's a huge worldwide issue that impacts creators impacts the violence against women and girls angle is just like honestly it's I did some research on it for a paper I wrote about deep fakes and it was harrowing the the like the the pornographic the violence it's the dark corners of the internet really are quite terrifying um but also there's fraud that like people can mimic your voice and call members of your family and in your voice be like oh can you just transfer me some money i've lost my bank card but it's fraud so there's so many many reasons why we should have rights in the sound of our voice and our likeness and our image in the age of ai deep fakes has the government said anything so this is more of a question also to you as well Sean like in terms of the structure of this but have the government said anything about that in itself like have they ever okay I'll ask that properly has the government ever said anything about personality rights in this new digital age while they're banging on about AI yeah so in the AI consultation that we had already that was sort of run by the UK Intellectual Property Office.

36:02They had lots of questions in that and it did focus on training data and the use of copyright content in training but it had one question about personality rights so it was obviously in the back of their mind at that point. They've never published the results of that because they had thousands probably it's just unmanageable. But they have said that they will investigate further around personality rights. There's been a call for personality rights from certain sectors such as the creative industries, in particular equity who represent performers and actors, because it's detrimental in that area in particular.

36:46But across the board, as I said, it impacts so many different areas. and then more recently the government have announced that there will be a specific consultation on personality rights that they said will run this summer. So if you're interested in this and you have views about this, people listening, please keep an eye out for that and interact with that inquiry and have your say because I think it's really important that they hear from creators and just from people about how this impacts them and what you think if you should have rights in the digital world around your likeness and image and voice.

37:28So Taylor Swift's a billionaire. She's got all that resource. And we live in an era where billionaires get bad mouthed often for very good reason. Surely she can set a legal precedent for all of us so that these corporations are taken on. Surely that's how it should work, right? Rather than just protecting herself, I'm not suggesting that she doesn't deserve to be protected. But I think there's something in the element of why can she not do it for everyone? I mean, even if she just does this for her young Swifties who are being deep faked, but really the world needs a new normal. And if you're Taylor Swift, you can set those norms, right?

38:11As you said at the start, we're human beings. Humans make laws and it needs really big, powerful people with lots of deep pockets and lawyers, I'm assuming, to set those new norms. Is that how it works, Hayley? It's a tricky one because in some ways, I don't think Taylor Swift should be writing the law because she's just one individual person. And the law should, you know, it's lawmaking as a process by which you hear views from lots of different people. And that's a really important part of it. I mean, I would love to sit down and write some laws, but then I might not do the best job and people might disagree.

38:45We have to hear from everybody's view and make a balanced approach for that particular law. There actually are some personality rights already under American law. So even if Taylor did lobby the US government to try to get the law changed, and it has happened, celebrities have done it. Paris Hilton recently changed a law because she decided that she wanted to do something about a certain area so it it can happen um I think in the UK it's less likely that we get laws that are sort of endorsed and pushed through with with a celebrity personality it can definitely help and we've had um you know like in the streaming inquiry getting certain um artists on board and having that it does have a stronger voice I think when you have that kind of celebrity endorsement almost um but I don't think that the power should just be for billionaires and celebrities I think that if the people want to have rights in their voice and likeness then we should all be calling up our local MPs or sending emails and lobbying the government to change those laws because they are changeable no law is set in stone we can always make a new rule and make the problem is that our voices we're fighting against like the tech giants who have more resources and money and they're trained advocates you know they have staff who their whole job is to lobby the government and we're trying to rally people especially in the creative industries who want to focus on their craft and their creativity and I'm there being like no come and do that but also come and help us make the law better so that it serves all of creativity in a more effective and fair way so there's lots of different kind of factors just explain the premise of this podcast well there you go on point I had one other thought in amongst all of what you were just saying and if Taylor Swift is obviously one end of the spectrum.

40:57But like you saying in your research, we've heard about these sort of things happening to everyday people, for want of a better word. Why do we have international laws, which I know obviously right now, international law is not something which is upheld very often when two-year-olds are being killed on the news bulletins, you're here to start your days. why do laws have to be so different in every country on something which is so universal as a deep fake is something that's happening to people all over the world for instance like is have there ever been things in the past where because something is happening globally I guess is why the universal declaration of human rights is a global thing but it's not actually legally enforceable and things like that is it because you get Nigel Farage talking about putting gunboats in the Thames in order to stop people coming to seek refuge, even though it's a human right.