The government recently launched a consultation on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright. The deadline for submission of views was 25 February 2025. Its preferred solution is for a copyright exception, allowing AI companies to use creator’s works to train their models, unless creators specifically reserve their rights by opting out.
I am a writer and editor of books on pharmaceutical drug regulation and, more recently, on the history of medicine. Copyright on my books lasts until 70 years after my death. Part of my income each year is payment via the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society for using my copyrighted material.
Together with a large number of artists, musicians and writers, I have responded to the consultation to state that we don’t think it is fair or practical to place the onus on creators to register their existing rights. Existing copyright laws do already require AI developers to obtain permission for the commercial use of copyrighted works. The issue is that these laws are not being observed, and we are not being paid by AI tech companies who use copyrighted material to feed their large language models.
A flourishing licensing market for the use of creators’ works is the best way to ensure that creators rights are respected and that they can secure fair remuneration if that is what they choose, while not restricting technological innovation.
Pharmaceutical Press is a major publisher and owns the copyright in the majority of its publications. What are its views, and how did it respond to the consultation?
Tony Cartwright BSc (Pharmacy), FRPharmS
3 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am surprised that the Society has not responded to Mr Cartwirght's letter - it is a matter that affects its pubications arm as well as a number of individual members. Did the society respond to the consultation on artifical intelligence and copyright or not? If it did respond what was the submission?
The Pharmaceutical Press’s lack of response to this query rather suggests that they did not respond to the Government’s consultation, that they agree with the Government’s position in allowing copyright exceptions and allowing AI companies to use its publications to train their models without recompense. Meta has used LibGen (a vast database of pirated material) to train its models. This contains a high proportion of my published writings including at least one book. It should not be left to individual creators to opt out. Pharmacists thinking of submitting their work to Pharmaceutical Press may therefore wish to think twice before agreeing to transfer their rights to the Press.
Thank you for your correspondence and queries related to recent consultation by UK government on copyright and article intelligence. While Pharmaceutical Press does not have a public policy in relation to the risks posed by artificial intelligence to copyright holders, we are carefully monitoring the rapidly evolving situation and working through our membership of publishing associations who are developing policy and providing advice to the UK government.
- Pharmaceutical Press