Keep yourself updated with free notifications.
Signing up for the Artificial Intelligence myFT Digest will bring the latest insights straight to your inbox.
The author of the piece is, in fact, a novelist.
Back in 1989, we made the decision to purchase a modest home nestled right by the medieval city walls of Carcassonne. That was where my affection for Languedoc began—a region brimming with history, hidden secrets across its land, and an enchanting sky with light dancing over the mountains at dusk. This love affair sparked the creation of my first historical adventure novel, “Labyrinth,” which was eventually translated into 38 languages and sold in over 40 countries. The book’s worldwide acclaim allowed me the freedom to leave my day job and embrace a life dedicated to writing.
My feelings of accomplishment were abruptly disrupted when I learned that the years spent in dreaming, researching, planning, writing, rewriting, editing, exploring libraries and archives, translating Occitan texts, and seeking out original documents from the 13th century, not to mention becoming an expert on Catharism, seemingly account for nothing. “Labyrinth” is among my novels that have been taken by Meta’s large language model, without my permission, compensation, or even notification. To me, this feels like theft.
While the prospects of artificial intelligence excite me, given that technology is an integral tool for all artists, helping us innovate and experiment, the unauthorized use of intellectual property poses a threat to creativity and copyright, and stands to erode the UK’s leading position in the creative economy. It is high time for us to stand united and take action.
Parliament has been bustling with AI discussions this month. On December 3, the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society presented their report titled “A Brave New World?” at a gathering of the All-Party Parliamentary Writers Group. This survey, encompassing the views of around 13,500 authors, shed light on the lopsided debate regarding illegal scraping and exploitation of authors’ work.
On December 9, Baroness Beeban Kidron gathered creative minds to deliberate on three proposed amendments to the data (use and access) bill currently being tabled in parliament. These changes could ensure the enforcement of UK copyright laws in the era of generative AI.
This discussion took place before the government launched a consultation on ways to cultivate trust between sectors. The goal is to ensure AI developers are more transparent with rights holders about the usage of their material. However, when the consultation’s framework became apparent, it seemed more like an effort to undermine the UK’s copyright laws, all in the name of “progress,” by suggesting that creators should have to “opt out” of allowing their work to be used for AI training.
During a debate in the House of Lords on the Kidron amendments, the peers collectively criticized the government’s proposals. Kidron noted, “The government has abandoned the creative industries.”
AI companies often portray creators as resistant to change, which is far from the truth. Every artist I know is already interacting with AI in one way or another. However, we must draw a line between beneficial AI applications—such as in medical diagnostics—and AI models based on the exploitation of creatives’ work for profit. It’s crucial to remember that AI companies depend on creators to construct their models. Without strong copyright protections that allow creators to earn a livelihood, AI companies will be deprived of the high-quality content vital for their advancement.
The UK boasts one of the world’s most dynamic, innovative, and profitable creative sectors, valued at about £108 billion annually. The publishing industry alone contributes £11 billion each year and has potential to grow by an additional £5.6 billion over the next decade. It supports 84,000 jobs and leads globally in publishing exports, with a projected 20 percent growth by 2033. Notably, 70 percent of the top-20 grossing films in 2023 were based on books.
The UK’s global success stems partly from its strong and equitable copyright laws, pioneered by the Statute of Anne in 1710. This law aimed to promote learning and support the book trade by ensuring creators retained full rights to their work, making unauthorized reproduction by publishers illegal.
Yet, the government risks undermining this fair system through a proposed “rights reservation” instead of an opt-in approach. Why should writers bear the burden of preventing AI companies from taking our work? If a producer wants to adapt our work into a film, radio show, or play, they negotiate with us to make a deal. Although technology has evolved, this principle remains the same. It’s not merely a question of fairness or legality, but also about economic growth. If creatives are forced to track down AI companies to protect their work, we’ll have less time to create, thereby stifling our industry’s success and growth.
I fully support the government’s commitment to leading in AI innovation. Over 60 years ago, at the 1963 Labour party conference, Harold Wilson spoke about the “white heat of technological revolution” and envisioned a “university of the air.” This forward-thinking mindset should continue, but weakening copyright is not the path forward. Requiring authors and creators to opt out is not the solution. Our original work is the foundation of it all.
