After campaigners accused minister of lying to parliament and the creative industry, the government said it would not force AI companies to disclose how they train models.

Ministers are in a stalemate with the House of Lords, which calls for immediate protection for artists to provide artists with their AI companies.

Peers voted 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on amending the Data Act, which would force AI companies to be transparent about the copyright material they use to train models.

In an amendment on Friday, the government dismissed the House of Lords’ request and reiterated its commitment to release economic impact assessments and technical reports to the future of AI and copyright regulations.

Beeban Kidron, a cross-border companion and film director who represents the industry’s campaign, said in a debate on Wednesday that she will “take public affairs” after this week. She said, "I will not stand before your lord and then follow our case."

But the News Media Association (NMA), which represents publishers including The Guardian, said peers could make further amendments to the Data Bill when they return to the House of Lords next Wednesday.

Industry figures say the government's actions are by not addressing the concerns of the House of Lords and call for further amendments to it before MPs vote on it on Tuesday.

Kidron said: "The government repeatedly pulled all protections for UK copyright holders from the Data Act. In doing so, they have put the creative industry in the creative industry, they have proved willing to phase out the second largest industrial sector in the UK. They lied to Parliament, they lied to that sector."

She said the government's actions “add another department to an increasingly large number of departments that have an incredible gap in trust with the government”.

NMA CEO Owen Meredith said: “The government refuses to hear strong opinions from the House of Lords … has the potential to undermine legislative processes.

"The government still has time to do the right thing and seize the power of transparency in this bill. This will be a key step towards rebuilding trust in the £12.6 billion industry."

The government's approach to copyright attracted anger from major creative artists and organizations including Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and the National Theater, which Elton John described as "having problems" this week.

Opponents of the plan warn that the government could challenge the proposed change in court even if the attempt to insert clauses into the data bill failed.

A consultation on copyright changes, which will present its findings by the end of the year, consists of four options: allowing AI companies to use copyrighted work without permission, and a choice to choose the artist’s “option out” process; keep the situation the same; requiring AI companies to seek permission to use copyrighted work; and allowing AI companies to use copyrighted work without having to exit creative companies and individuals.

Kyle said the copyright-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government’s preferred option, but Kidron’s amendment sought to seek the option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek a license agreement to use to train any content for AI models.