Stay informed with free updates
Just enter the Artificial intelligence myFT Digest — delivered straight to your inbox.
A writer is a writer of books
In 1989, we bought a small house in the shadow of the walls of the medieval city of Carcassonne. It was the beginning of my love affair with Languedoc – the history, the arcane mysteries hidden in the land, the endless blue sky, the light over the mountains at dusk. It will inspire my first historical novel, The Labyrinthwhich would be translated into 38 languages and sold in over 40 countries. Its global success is the reason I quit my day job and became a full-time writer.
So, imagine my dismay to discover that those 15 years of dreaming, researching, planning, writing, writing, editing, visiting libraries and archives, translating Occitan texts, hunting down early 13th century documents, becoming an expert on Catharism, seem to matter. for free. The Labyrinth one of my many published novels A large Meta language model. This was done without my consent, without payment, without notice. This is theft.
I'm excited about artificial intelligence and possibilities. Using technology to improve, develop, experiment and innovate is part of any artist's tool kit. We need time to be creative and, possibly, AI can give us breathing space to do things we love. But intellectual property theft is an attack on creativity and copyright, and will undermine the UK's world-leading economy. The time has come to gather and act.
This has been a busy month in parliament for AI. On December 3, the Authors Licensing and Collecting Association launched the report “Brave New World?” at a meeting of the Group of Parliamentary Writers of the Parties. This survey of 13,500 writers' attitudes to AI throws a hand grenade into the side-splitting debate about the illegal scraping and crawling of writers' work and the stereotypes surrounding it.
On December 9, Baroness Beeban Kidron called creators to discuss three proposed amendments to the data (use and access) bill going through parliament, which will make UK copyright law enforceable in the age of AI production.
This comes ahead of government consultations on how to promote trust between sectors, to ensure that AI developers provide rights holders with more clarity about how their material is being used. So far, so good. Except, when the consultation framework was revealed, and it became clear that it was an attempt to weaken UK copyright laws in the name of “progress” by suggesting creators and copyright holders should “opt out” of their work. used for AI training.
When the House of Lords debated Kidron's reforms this week, peers were unanimous in their view of the government's plans, Kidron said: “The government has sold the creative industries downstream.”
AI companies portray creators as resistant to change. Isn't it. Every artist I know is already working with AI in one way or another. But a distinction must be made between AI that can be used in brilliant ways – for example, medical diagnosis – and the basics of AI models, where companies steal creative work for their own profit. We should not forget that AI companies rely on creators to build their models. Without a strong copyright law that ensures creators can earn a living, AI companies will lack the high-quality resources necessary for future growth.
The UK has one of the most successful, productive and profitable creative industries in the world, worth £108bn a year. The publishing industry alone contributes £11bn a year and has the potential to grow another £5.6bn over the next ten years. It supports 84,000 jobs and leads the world in exports, with 20 percent growth projected by 2033. In the film industry, 70 percent of the top 20 grossing films in 2023 were based on books.
One of the reasons for this global success is because we have strong and appropriate copyright laws. The UK pioneered these. Anne's Act, passed in 1710, aimed to promote reading and support the book trade, creating a framework in which authors from a work retain full rights, making it legal for publishers to reproduce a work without permission or payment.
It is this system that is strong and fair that the government will look down upon if it follows the exit – or “reservation of rights” in the new parlance – instead of the entry model. Why should we writers bear the burden of preventing AI companies from doing our job? If a producer wants to make a film about it, or a radio show, or a theater piece, they approach us and we make a deal. Although the technology is new and evolving, the principle remains the same. AI is no different. It is not just a matter of justice, or of doing things illegally, but of economic growth. If designers have to spend time trying to track down AI companies to stop our work from being copied, we'll have less time to work. This will, in turn, limit our world-class creative industries and undermine growth.
I fully support the government in its commitment to harness the future and become a world leader in AI development. More than sixty years ago, at the Labor party conference in 1963, Harold Wilson spoke of the “white heat of the technological revolution” and the “air university”. This Labor government is following those forward thinking steps. But weakening copyright is not the way to do it. Placing the burden on writers and other creators to come out is not the way to do it. Without the first job, there is nothing.