You Can Sign this Statement on AI Training

It's simple.

It's powerful.

It's important.

“The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”

You can add your name, and share with others. Here's the link: https://www.aitrainingstatement.org/

I heard about this from Maria Pallante, President and CEO, Association of American Publishers, during her keynote address about copyright and freedom of expression at the IBPA (Independent Book Publishers Association) Publishing University conference on May 16, 2025.

Illustrate, Translate, and Write On,
Lee

Were Your Books Stolen in Meta’s "Massive AI Training Book Heist"?

So instead of asking authors and paying for the rights to use our books to train their AI system, Meta evidently just used books and articles held in Library Genesis -- a "pirate" site.

Here's an exercise, courtesy of Alex Reisner at The Atlantic: Search LibGen, the Pirated-Books Database That Meta used to Train AI

When I ran the search on my own name, three of my published books came up (one of them twice.)

Run your own name, and see if your works -- without permission, without compensation -- were used to train Meta's AI.

The Authors Guild is calling it a "massive heist," and explains some of the things authors can do, including the information that "Class Action Lawsuits Cover All Writers Whose Books Were Used." They also say, in Meta’s Massive AI Training Book Heist: What Authors Need to Know:

"Meta and other AI companies knew exactly what they were doing but they did it anyway. Why? Because they needed books for their quality writing, style, expression, and long-form narration and would rather steal them than ask and pay for them as they do for all of the other necessary components of their AI, such as electricity and programming."

When I've used words like "Stolen" to describe the action of taking something without permission and without compensation and using it to create something else that is then sold, I've heard the response that I'm exaggerating.

I've also heard some folks say that the AI companies couldn't possibly afford to do it any other way. Except, for 2024 Meta reported, as Yahoo Finance explained, revenue of $164.5 billion -- and a profit of $62.4 billion. 

Billion.

And there are companies who are licensing works for AI training (in fact, the Authors Guild is working with one.) Note: Consent of the creators is key.

Bydonmartin at Instagram (ironically enough, as it is a Meta-owned platform) summed up their creator perspective here. It's well-worth watching.

It's all pretty upsetting, but helpful to stay informed. And maybe, as the Authors Guild suggests in their list of five things authors can do right now, taking some action can help. Here's their first suggestion:

Send a formal notice: If your books are in the LibGen dataset, send a letter to Meta and other AI companies stating they do not have the right to use your books. Here is a template you can use. 

Writing the letter took me two minutes (just added my info and my stolen book info) -- I've copied the text of my letter below. Did it make me feel a bit better? Yeah, a little. And if enough of us do it, maybe it will have an impact. You can draft your own letter here.

Illustrate, Translate, and Write On,
Lee

--

To: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Subject: You Do Not Have the Right to Use My Work

My Message:

I am writing to you as an author who is extremely concerned about your misuse of my creative work. It has come to my attention that you have used my books, Queer as a Five-Dollar Bill, A Different Kind of Brave, and No Way, They Were Gay? Hidden Lives and Secret Loves, in the training of your generative AI models without permission from me, and in violation of my rights under copyright.

This letter is to put you on notice that you do not have the right to use my work to train your AI models. You must obtain express permission and provide reasonable licensing terms for authors’ works.

I hope you will set an example of responsible, legal, ethical AI use by obtaining permission before using authors’ and journalists’ works going forward and compensating us for the use you have already made. 

Lee Wind

The Authors Guild Shares "Practical Tips for Authors To Protect Their Works from AI Use"

Our friends at the Authors Guild are doing some important education and advocacy around Artificial Intelligence, in particular the unauthorized use of copyright-protected content to train generative AI -- though I do think we should be calling it "re-generative" because these systems are not creating anything new, they're regurgitating and remixing human-created creative work.

This piece, Practical Tips for Authors To Protect Their Works from AI Use, is very instructive.

In it, the Authors Guild suggests a "No AI Training" notice be used, something like:

NO AI TRAINING: Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.

It's well-worth checking out.

Illustrate, Translate, and Write On,
Lee

Getting Permission To Write About Others - Jacqui Lipton Explains It for Our Friends at the Highlights Foundation Blog

Over at the Highlights Foundation blog, lawyer and Senior Agent at The Tobias Literary Agency Jacqui Lipton shares a guest post, (When) Do I Need Permission to Write About Real People and Events?

Jacqui starts off with this overview:

If you plan to write about real people and events, you may face questions about when you need permission to reproduce text, imagery (photographs, maps, charts) or anything else you’ve uncovered in your research. The main body of law relevant here is copyright which basically prohibits reproducing and distributing other people’s work without permission. Note that the law applies to the actual expression of the work—e.g. the actual words the creator has used—and not the idea behind the work. Ideas and facts can’t be copyrighted so you only have to worry about copyright law, and permissions, if you plan to actually copy someone else’s protected expression. 

And then breaks down the information into four sections, 

1. Public Domain

2. Creative Commons

3. Specific Permissions—Licenses

4. Fair Use

The blog post is helpful and well-worth reading. (And if you want to dive in deeper, Jacqui also wrote the book Law and Authors: A Legal Handbook for Writers.)

Illustrate, Translate, and Write On,
Lee

CASE Act Becomes Law - Creating Small Claims Tribunal in the Copyright Office

Advocated for by members of the Authors Guild, the Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA), and an entire "copyright alliance" coalition, on December 27, 2020 the CASE Act was signed into law. 

As reported at the IBPA website, 

 “this new legislation will create a forum called the Copyright Claims Board within the U.S. Copyright Office to hear copyright claims of up to $15,000 per claim and an aggregate of $30,000. The cost of bringing a claim will range between a minimum of $100 and a maximum of the filing cost of an action in federal district court (currently $350), and the claims will be heard by a panel of three Copyright Claims Officers appointed by the Librarian of Congress, at least two of whom must have experience representing both owners and users of copyrighted works. The legislation ultimately ensures that individual content creators and other copyright owners who depend on copyright for their livelihoods but can’t afford the costs of protracted litigation gain access to justice.” 

 The Copyright Alliance explains further:

Why is the small claims process important?

Because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright, and federal litigation is so expensive, many professional creators and small businesses simply cannot afford to defend their rights when someone infringes their copyrighted works. Visual artists, authors and songwriters are hurt the most by the high cost of federal litigation because the individual value of their works or transactions is often too low to warrant the expense of litigation and most attorneys won’t even consider taking these small cases. As a result, these infringements regularly go unchallenged, leading many creators to feel disenfranchised by the copyright system. In effect, these creators have rights but no remedies.

Until now!

In the words of Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger,

“Copyright law should protect all creators, but the unfortunate fact is that it only protects those who can afford the high costs of federal court and legal representation. With the average cost of federal litigation at $400,000, pursuing a remedy for their rights is impossible for most authors—even the best-selling ones. The CASE Act changes this by providing authors with a voluntary, inexpensive and streamlined alternative that they can use to protect their rights, their creativity and their livelihoods.”

You can learn more about the CASE Act here at the Copyright Alliance's Q&A.

Illustrate and Write On,
Lee