The Society of Authors (SoA) has seen the proposal HarperCollins has sent to some of its nonfiction authors about licensing their work for the purpose of developing generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.
While we believe that AI training rights are the authors’ rights to license, and that they are not automatically granted to the publisher, this deal is a step closer towards an ethical and legal licensing framework that is vital to replace the industrial scale copyright infringement that has taken place to date.
The SoA alongside other creators’ organisations has long insisted that creators and their representatives should have control over whether their work is used for AI development, and that any use should be appropriately credited and remunerated.
We understand the argument that paid-for, curated and carefully controlled licensed uses are a pragmatic response from publishers to tech companies unlawfully scraping works to develop AI systems.
Contrary to the approach taken by several academic publishers this summer, HarperCollins is seeking explicit consent from those authors whose works could be included, on a per-title (and payment per title) basis and as a separate agreement to any previous publishing agreement. In addition, we understand that the proposed licence does not permit the generation of derivative works, and it has a number of ’guardrails’ around liabilities for false information, attribution of any extracts and on preventing unauthorised uses.
However, these proposed licences from HarperCollins should not be taken as a precedent in all respects.
- We strongly believe that the publisher’s share, if authors’ rights are licensed through the publisher, should be closer to that of an agent’s share for licensing rights, not a 50:50 split.
- The licensing agreement is limited to three years, which is good, but we believe the fee offered is not sufficient considering that the tech company can continue to use the AI models that have been trained on the work after the agreement with the publisher has expired. This licence is therefore potentially a one-off fee for use in perpetuity. We would expect reassurances either that the Model would not be in use after three years, or that the licence would need to be renewed.
- We also have concerns over the question of payments for outputs. If outputs are monetised (which we currently find unclear), we would expect a share of that income to go to the author (and licensing publisher) both during and after the licence period.
- Authors will also need clarity on warranties.
While we have strong reservations about this deal, it is a positive step towards an ethical and lawful AI licensing framework for the use of copyright-protected material.
We will continue to urge all publishers to obtain fully-informed consent from the authors whose works might be included in any deal, to provide them with a clear explanation of what may or may not be done with their intellectual property by any licensed AI system, to ensure that they receive fair payment for that use, and to give assurances about appropriate credits, potential liabilities, and the enforcement of anti-piracy measures.
There are still many technical and practical issues to resolve, and we cannot forget that the livelihoods of writers, translators and illustrators are already being negatively impacted by generative AI systems.
We also have serious concerns about uncritical reliance on generative AI and its impact on the ecosystem of rigorous scholarly research and the implications for society more widely. This is something which is exacerbated by the increasing shift from pay-to-access to pay-to-publish models in scholarly publishing. The HarperCollins deal, and the research the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) and the Copyright Licensing Agency are conducting into collective licensing schemes for particular forms of exploitation, are welcome first steps at this critical time to ensure that creators’ rights are respected and that a legal and ethical AI licensing framework is established.
- From The Bookseller: HarperCollins and AI: a brain-training deal to watch closely
- 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.