Jimmy Page has criticised the UK government’s proposals around artificial intelligence (AI), writing in a comment piece published in The Times newspaper on March 1 that the proposed opt-out system for creators is “a sham”.
In Page’s article, which he also published in full through his social media channels, he writes that his “journey from the anonymity of session work to the global stages with Led Zeppelin was not a path paved by algorithms or data sets.”
Page wrote in his article that artwork generated by AI is “hollow echoes, devoid of the struggles, triumphs, and soul that define true artistry.”
“If, during my session days, someone had taken my riffs without acknowledgment or payment, it would have been deemed theft. The same standard must apply to AI,” he wrote.
In his article, Page claimed that the government consultation on its proposed legislation “ends today”. However, the consultation ended on February 25.
Other artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn and Annie Lennox previously criticised the government’s proposals prior to the ending of the consultation.
Page’s intervention follows similar action by Robert Plant last year after he supported a campaign started by Steve Marriott’s children to block their father’s estate from releasing AI-generated music.
“This is a far cry from what any of us dreamt of when we set off into this wonderful world of music. We just can’t stand by and watch this unfold,” Plant said last year.
Read Page’s full article below:
In the disciplined studios of the early 1960s London, I honed my craft as a session musician, lending my guitar to a myriad of artists across genres. Those countless hours, often three three-hour sessions a day, were more than just work; they were a crucible of creativity, collaboration, and ceaseless inspiration.
I was required to create and conjure riffs and lyrical figures immediately without slowing down the momentum of the work being recorded with the other musicians and the artist.
This journey from the anonymity of session work to the global stages with Led Zeppelin was not a path paved by algorithms or data sets. It was a voyage marked by spontaneous improvisation and the unquantifiable spark of human ingenuity. The alchemy that transformed a unique riff into an anthem was etched into the collective soul of the band — a synergy that no machine can emulate.
Today, as artificial intelligence seeks to mimic and monetise creativity, we stand at a crossroads. AI-generated art and music, synthesised from existing human works, lack the visceral essence that comes from lived experience. They are but hollow echoes, devoid of the struggles, triumphs, and soul that define true artistry.
Moreover, the ethical implications are profound. When AI scrapes the vast tapestry of human creativity to generate content, it often does so without consent, attribution, or compensation. This is not innovation; it’s exploitation.
If, during my session days, someone had taken my riffs without acknowledgment or payment, it would have been deemed theft. The same standard must apply to AI.
We must champion policies that protect artists, ensuring that their work isn’t siphoned off into the void of machine learning without due regard. Let us celebrate and preserve the human touch in art — the imperfections, the emotions, the stories behind every note and cadence.
In defending the sanctity of human creativity against the encroachment of AI, we safeguard not just the rights of artists, but the very soul of our cultural heritage.
Yet, today, the UK government is proposing changes that would strip creators of this protection. Under the Data (Use and Access) Bill, AI companies would be allowed to take works, past and future, and use them as training data without consent or payment. These models digest vast amounts of human-created content and then generate imitations, bypassing the rights of the original creators.
The government’s proposed “opt-out” system — the idea that artists will always be in a position to preemptively reserve their rights — is a sham. It is technically impossible for artists to opt out. The government’s consultation ends today, but we should be clear: this is not regulation; it is a free pass for AI to exploit creativity without consequence. We must push for legislation that ensures AI cannot monetise human creativity without explicit consent and fair compensation. The government’s preferred option in its current consultation does not do that.
Music is not a product of data. It is an evocation, a defiance of logic, a collision of time and place and soul. If we allow AI to co-opt the heart of human creativity, we are not ushering in a bold new era — we are signing the death warrant of originality itself.
The choice is ours. Will we let the machines take the stage, or will we fight for the irreplaceable magic of human artistry?
Me and my friends have achieved the level of Led Zeppelin’s members in musicianship.
My drummer plays the drums like Jimmy Page, our guitarist plays the guitar like John Bonham, the bassist plays the bass like Robert Plant and I sing like John Paul Jones.
Ai should be used to make Led Zeppelin bootlegs sound better that it.
Thank you Jim! Stand up against the digitization of the world against robotics, AI and digital currency!
oh well electric cars net zero and now this sign of the times