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
