Update, Wednesday 1 October: Since sending the letter on 21 August, we have sent follow-up letters to all companies on Wednesday 18 September. We have received a few responses and expect others soon, having received confirmation of receipt from other companies.
Today (Wednesday 21 August) the Society of Authors (SoA) has written to tech companies on behalf of its 12,500+ members to assert that ‘they do not authorise or otherwise grant permission for the use of any of their copyright-protected works’ in relation to the ‘training’, development and operation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Among those contacted are Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Apple and Meta.
In this letter, we establish the foundational principle that, without the licence or consent of the author, the use of copyright works by AI developers amounts to copyright infringement, with further infringement happening ‘where the AI model is used to generate a work […] which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the copyright work’. This is plainly against UK law as well as international copyright regulations. The SoA urges these companies, instead, to ‘agree terms on a commercial basis with respective rightsholders’ through available licensing opportunities.
Download the letter:
A mandate to write to tech companies on this issue was given at our Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on Thursday 2 May 2024 when members voted in favour of a resolution asserting that they do not consent to generative AI developers using their works. The Creative Rights Alliance (CRA) issued a similar letter to tech companies on behalf of its member organisations (including the SoA), which represent over 500,000 creators, on Wednesday 7 August.
A significant number of copyright-protected works have been used without consent, transparency around data sets or any renumeration for rightsholders and creators, to ‘train’, develop and operate generative AI systems. This continues to cause great harm to creators’ livelihoods and jeopardises the future of the profession, which in turn threatens our creative industries and our cultural capital.
The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee enquiry into Large Language Models report supports the fact that tech firms should not use copyright-protected works without permission or compensation, and that these firms should seek licences and create transparency for rightsholders. Over the last few months, ALCS have been surveying their members to explore attitudes to two potential licensing options (the survey is now closed).
There are options available to ensure that generative AI and creators can coexist. This is vital not only for creators, but also for successful generative AI systems, which depend on human authored work to function and to evolve.
- Where we stand on AI.
- If you find that your work has been used without consent, you can contact the SoA for bespoke guidance. We would also encourage you to contact us to share experiences and feedback – this is vital to help inform our policy work.
- See our practical guidance for authors concerned by the potential impact of generative AI.
Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec la démarche de la Society of Authors. En tant qu’auteur, il est essentiel pour moi que les œuvres que nous créons soient protégées et respectées, même dans le contexte des nouvelles technologies comme l’intelligence artificielle générative. Les avancées technologiques ne doivent pas se faire au détriment des droits des créateurs. J’apprécie que la Society of Authors prenne position et défende les droits des auteurs face à ces enjeux, car il est important que notre travail soit utilisé de manière éthique et légale.
That’s pretty shabby – only one confirmation of receipt two weeks later. Unfortunately, it reflects the widespread communication malaise of the corporate world. Tech companies in particular are notoriously hard to get hold of, whether you’re a private customer or in a B2B context. Let’s hope that now the summer holidays are over, they’ll buck up a bit. Good luck.