Why are we waiting? Authors want publishing giant to explain what AI deals mean for them
‘Tell us how and when royalties will be paid’
WHAT’S HAPPENED?
ACADEMIC WRITERS are still in the dark over AI deals worth millions of dollars that their publisher last summer said would benefit authors.
Earlier this month Dr Janet Salmons, an independent scholarly writer living and working in Boulder, Colorado, expressed her infuriation over not being informed about AI agreements struck between Informa, the global publishing group, and two AI companies. Last July, Informa — which owns Routledge, part of its Taylor & Francis division — said it would generate more than $75 million from deals with Microsoft and another AI developer it did not name, adding this would create “additional royalties for authors”.
In an interview with Charting Gen AI, Janet — who has had three books and a chapter in a collected volume published by Routledge — said she felt betrayed “by those who should be safeguarding our intellectual property and championing the value of scholarly research and writing”.
We’ve since heard from another author with a similar experience to Janet. Dr Lauren Barbeau, assistant director of learning and technology initiatives at Georgia Institute of Technology, co-authored a book published by Routledge and has a second currently undergoing peer review. Lauren told Charting her co-author alerted her of the AI licensing deal having read about it on a trade news website. “It's not the kind of news you hope to wake up to,” said Lauren. “There was no attempt by Routledge to contact us. At no point has Routledge provided information about the deal or how it impacts us as authors.”
Lauren said she sympathised with Taylor & Francis’ decision “to profit from intentionally selling access to their catalogue rather than having it slowly leaked into AI through illegal copies”. And she accepted that once published authors had little control over what happens to their work. “What’s not as easy to accept is the lack of consideration, communication, or compensation from Routledge,” said Lauren. “No one writes an academic book expecting to get rich. However, seeing even a small bump in my royalty statement would at least give me the sense that my publisher valued me as a writer and contributor rather than as a knowledge source to be exploited.”
Lauren added: “This simply feels like the next level of an existing system of exploitation. There have long been complaints about the abysmal royalties for academic book authors and the entire lack of royalties for article authors. Now publishers have found a way to profit even more from our work without sharing that benefit. I don't see this as a departure from previous publishing practices but merely an unwelcome extension that may finally push higher education to reconsider its publication practices.”
Charting asked Taylor & Francis whether authors had been informed about the AI deal and offered an opt-out. We asked if royalty payments had been explained, and if they hadn’t, then on what legal basis had the publisher proceeded. And we asked whether it was company policy to “essentially keep authors in the dark”. Mark Robinson, corporate media relations manager for Taylor & Francis, responded after we published Janet’s interview. He declined to answer our specific questions but sent the following statement, which we’re publishing in full:
Academic knowledge has an important role to play in the improvement, relevance, and performance of AI models that are used both by researchers and the world at large. It is only by engaging proactively with AI developers that we can contribute to the discussion, development and design of AI and achieve the best outcome for authors. That is why we have chosen to form carefully considered AI partnerships with developers who are aligned with us on the importance of knowledge and original research, verification, authenticity and trust, and respect for intellectual property rights.
Licensing activities such as these are a fundamental responsibility for research publishers, working on behalf of authors to ensure their ideas make the fullest possible contribution, and are consistent with our author agreements. While we do not routinely notify rights holders about each new licensing agreement, full protection of intellectual property rights and authors’ rights are always a priority. There are therefore strict boundaries attached to our new AI partnership agreements. We have contractual rules that protect authors’ rights, safeguard their content from unauthorized access or use and limit the reproduction of verbatim text. Royalties will be paid to authors and other rights holders in accordance with the licensing terms and royalty statement periods in their contracts.
Asked to comment on the statement, Janet said it was a verbatim copy of what she’d received from Taylor & Francis in August, “so it hasn’t clarified its rationale or royalty policy in response to complaints”. Janet said if Taylor & Francis was “working on behalf of authors” then it would have needed to consult with them “to know what we want”.
“When I wrote to express what I wanted, namely an opt-out, I was told that was impossible and that authors had no say in the matter. Indeed, to this day no information from the publisher has gone out to authors to explain the deal and its implications,” said Janet. “Taylor & Francis’ behaviour flies in the face of its commitment to fully protect IP and author rights. What rights exactly? We don’t even have the right to be told what it is doing, let alone the right to influence decisions about what becomes of our work.
“Contracts agreed before generative AI was developed obviously didn’t include clauses that could be interpreted to include this type of usage. Licensing for translation or inclusion in a database is not equivalent to licensing to AI — where our writings can be torn apart and mashed up with words stolen from other writers, or garbage scraped from the internet.”
Janet said her last communication with the publisher in September 2024 had questioned the basis on which royalties would be paid, and whether they would include figures and original drawings that Janet’s works had also included. “Still no answer,” Janet told Charting. “I have not seen a penny of the millions that the publisher has supposedly received”.
RELATED:
WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
✨ The plight of scholarly writers has largely been overlooked in the coverage of creators’ battles over AI. Their work is critical in the development and dissemination of human knowledge; their painstaking process involves numerous rounds of rigorous checks and reviews that, in the case of one of Janet’s books, took 15 years to complete. The highest-profile AI disputes involve household name publishers accusing AI developers of using their copyrighted works to train generative models without permission or payment. Then there are the class actions joined by famous fiction writers and visual artists. These cases attract attention since they involve the familiar, the known. Scholarly writers are unsung heroes working in the shadows. Many regard contributing to journals and writing books as part of their academic mission, and seek little if any financial reward. Few can afford to complain publicly since they’re bound by tenure. We believe they deserve to be treated with respect. We will continue to press Taylor & Francis and Informa for a detailed response to our questions.
Key developments that threaten to reshape the global human-made media landscape in Friday’s Weekly Newsletter
I'm sure Routledge got paid. Robber barrons. Time for another class action lawsuit!
What makes it all worse: I’ve seen no evidence that AI knows how to weight what it’s fed. Reddit opinions, Fox News, and a deep dive by a serious scholar are all just data.