The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society – a UK organisation that works to ensure that writers are fairly compensated for any of its members’ works that has been copied, broadcast or recorded – has found in a recent survey of its members that only 7% of authors who know that their work has been used to train AI had given permission.

Furthermore, over three-quarters (77%) of authors do not know if their work has been used to train AI models.

The survey, conducted between June and August of this year, was completed by 13,574 members of ALCS and highlighted the lack of transparency that surrounds generative AI models, such as ChatGPT.

The survey revealed that authors are aligned with the key themes of choice, recognition, transparency, and remuneration developed by the ALCS in 2023 and make clear the need for  licensing options that fairly compensate writers for the use of their work in training AI models.

The report underscores that authors are not inherently opposed to their works being used to train AI models, provided certain conditions are met. The survey found that writers overwhelmingly believe that fair compensation, proper credit, and explicit permission should be prerequisites for such use.

According to the findings, 91% of authors feel they should be asked for permission before their works are utilised. Similarly, 96% believe they should receive remuneration when their content contributes to AI training, while 87% want to be credited for their contributions. Moreover, 92% of respondents expressed a desire for compensation for any past, unauthorised use of their work by AI systems.

A major issue raised in the report is the lack of transparency surrounding AI systems. For instance, 77% of authors admitted they are unsure whether their works have been used in AI training.

This uncertainty contributes to broader concerns, with 71% worried about their works being used to train AI without their knowledge, and an equal percentage alarmed by the possibility of AI platforms replicating their writing style.

Despite these challenges, authors are open to solutions like collective licensing agreements. The survey revealed that 81% of respondents would support such an agreement if negotiated by a body like ALCS. However, flexibility remains a priority, as 72% of authors would want the option to opt out of any licensing scheme put in place.

Recommended reading

• New Report Reveals Gen AI’s Potential Impact on Future Management
• IT Pros Divided Over How AI Can Improve Workplace Experience
• Ready or Not, AI Is Already In Your Workplace

ALCS CEO Barbara Hayes says of the report: “The findings of our survey confirm much of what we already believed about writers’ attitudes to the lack of remuneration and choice. But what also became clear is that writers are often in the dark about what is happening to their works, and subsequently they don’t know how to feel about it.

“They have a lot of questions: How do we find out what has been used? How will any remuneration work? How will AI affect the careers of authors?

“It is our belief that licensing offers the best solution for ensuring authors are recognised and fairly compensated for the use of their work in AI systems, if that is what they choose to do.”