Can't blame authors for trying, but I can't see them being very successful - providing the AIs aren't regurgitating the books verbatim back to users (in which case there should be a fee). All of humanity's knowledge and output to AIs is the equivalent of an alphabet to the written word. It's underlying enabling infrastructure, not the thing itself.
What I would like to see, however, is AI being treated as something like a public good eventually ie we all own it rather than a few billionaires.
Writers don't even get a royalty at present for use of their copyrighted work. Sure the tech companies could afford a fee to pay for use of books in training. Writers get royalties for library loans and photocopying so we should get something for AI use.
I see AIs use of content in training, including copyrighted content, as closer to search engines than photocopying and library loans. Both AI and search engines scrape the entire content of copyrighted works in order to work inc from legal and illegal sources , but they don't display it verbatim (or at least they shouldn't).
More problematic is AI's potential for aping living authors and artists styles. That should become a new revenue stream for artists. If someone wants a article in Pete May's style generated by AI, no worries but you should get paid for it. Or if they want to view one of your books via the AI chat bot - again you should get paid for it. Both of these should be consent based.
Another topic, but I think we'll eventually come to see copyright protection as a blip (admittedly a several hundred year lasting one) in the history of humanity creativity.
Would it be affordable or feasible to pay for training data - I'm not sure. There are tens of millions of books, and it couldn't stop there as it would have to apply to all of the web pages, audio, images and videos on the internet too. Again, I feel it comes back to ensuring this technology becomes a public good owned by all and the benefits shared accordingly rather than the power and wealth concentrated in a few billionaires' hands. We've all, author or not, had a hand in creating it.
Agree it should be owned by all. We can't uninvent AI, but I think what really annoys authors is helping to make billionaires even richer and create something that might ultimately put them out of a job. I hope copyright isn't a blip as that's the only hope of writers getting paid, without it anyone can pirate your book. There's also plenty of material out of copyright AI could use. At present Meta doesn't even buy a copy of each book as far as I can see. Here's a copy of the letter to Meta from the SoA. https://societyofauthors.org/2025/04/04/the-soas-message-to-meta-dont-steal-our-books/
There are have been attempts to create AIs out of public domain or works with artists' permission. Adobe has done it IIRC with their generative AI image tools. But for general chatbot type applications, the results haven't been that fantastic.
Can't blame authors for trying, but I can't see them being very successful - providing the AIs aren't regurgitating the books verbatim back to users (in which case there should be a fee). All of humanity's knowledge and output to AIs is the equivalent of an alphabet to the written word. It's underlying enabling infrastructure, not the thing itself.
What I would like to see, however, is AI being treated as something like a public good eventually ie we all own it rather than a few billionaires.
Writers don't even get a royalty at present for use of their copyrighted work. Sure the tech companies could afford a fee to pay for use of books in training. Writers get royalties for library loans and photocopying so we should get something for AI use.
I see AIs use of content in training, including copyrighted content, as closer to search engines than photocopying and library loans. Both AI and search engines scrape the entire content of copyrighted works in order to work inc from legal and illegal sources , but they don't display it verbatim (or at least they shouldn't).
More problematic is AI's potential for aping living authors and artists styles. That should become a new revenue stream for artists. If someone wants a article in Pete May's style generated by AI, no worries but you should get paid for it. Or if they want to view one of your books via the AI chat bot - again you should get paid for it. Both of these should be consent based.
Another topic, but I think we'll eventually come to see copyright protection as a blip (admittedly a several hundred year lasting one) in the history of humanity creativity.
Would it be affordable or feasible to pay for training data - I'm not sure. There are tens of millions of books, and it couldn't stop there as it would have to apply to all of the web pages, audio, images and videos on the internet too. Again, I feel it comes back to ensuring this technology becomes a public good owned by all and the benefits shared accordingly rather than the power and wealth concentrated in a few billionaires' hands. We've all, author or not, had a hand in creating it.
Agree it should be owned by all. We can't uninvent AI, but I think what really annoys authors is helping to make billionaires even richer and create something that might ultimately put them out of a job. I hope copyright isn't a blip as that's the only hope of writers getting paid, without it anyone can pirate your book. There's also plenty of material out of copyright AI could use. At present Meta doesn't even buy a copy of each book as far as I can see. Here's a copy of the letter to Meta from the SoA. https://societyofauthors.org/2025/04/04/the-soas-message-to-meta-dont-steal-our-books/
There are have been attempts to create AIs out of public domain or works with artists' permission. Adobe has done it IIRC with their generative AI image tools. But for general chatbot type applications, the results haven't been that fantastic.