Where we end up on the question of opt-in/opt-out, and an equitable division of income, is still under heavy discussion across the creative industries and with government. During the hiatus of summer recess, we have time to pause and consider what an equitable division of income looks like for the publishing industry.

It’s vital that existing poor terms for authors do not become acceptable "standard" terms just because a number of academic and educational publishers in a strong negotiating position take a unilateral stand.

We all know that authors’ earnings have been declining for decades, and the situation for academic and educational authors is increasingly precarious. Many authors report to us their fears about the impact that AI is going to have on their professional livelihoods.

In 2024, the Society of Authors expressed its concerns over the sale of academic publishers’ catalogues to tech companies. Almost a year later, the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better.

There are continued reports of academic and educational publishers assuming they have the right to allow their authors’ works to be accessed and exploited by generative AI systems; this includes backlist works governed by contracts agreed long before generative AI, as it is now, even existed – and making tiny or no payments to the authors for such use.

While some academic and educational publishers do seek consent from their authors before licensing such rights, which is commendable, we remain concerned about the poor financial terms offered; it is too often a take-it-or-leave-it pro rata share of a small percentage of any income from the licensee. Such a division of income is devastatingly unfair.

We now see some academic and educational publishers behaving much more like tech companies, viewing the author merely as a content provider

What the AI systems are interested in is the authors’ original work – the words. The publisher is acting as no more than a facilitating agent, indeed less than that where licensing is done in bulk rather than negotiated title by title. We strongly believe that the publisher should be retaining no more than 20% of any income paid by the licensee.

We also remain concerned that some academic and educational publishers allow in-house AI systems to access and exploit their authors’ works without explicit consent and without payment. Indeed, one publisher even offers its authors the chance to buy access to the publisher’s AI-generated summary of their own work!

Call me idealistic, but publishing should be a fair partnership with the author and publisher both doing their best for the author’s work, and in consumer publishing that is largely the case. Consumer publishers are also holding firm against the predations of generative AI systems. But we now see some academic and educational publishers behaving much more like tech companies, viewing the author merely as a content provider.

At the Society of Authors, we always advise members to consider carefully the merits of any particular commission before signing contracts. We’ll continue to help and advise authors so that they feel more empowered to negotiate fairer contract terms.

In an industry where publishers are in a position of greater relative power over authors, it is our duty of care to encourage authors to seek bespoke advice from their professional advisors or trade union before they sign. Only this way can we ensure that authors stand a chance of getting a fair and equitable deal.