The Professional Publishers Association (PPA) has joined the Creative Rights in AI Coalition to spearhead the "Make It Fair" campaign as the UK government contemplates copyright law changes that could allow AI companies to use creative content without permission or compensation. With the publishing industry generating substantial economic value and employing over 55,000 people across the UK, the PPA argues that while AI innovation is welcome, it must develop within a framework that respects intellectual property rights. In this exclusive interview, The AI Summit Series speaks with Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy & Public Affairs at the PPA about their campaign to protect publishers' rights in the AI age and ensure the sustainable future of both creative and technology sectors.

The AI Summit Series (TAIS): Thank you Eilidh for joining us to discuss the "Make It Fair" campaign. Let's begin our conversation...

TAIS: What prompted the PPA to join the Creative Rights in AI Coalition?

Eilidh Wilson (EW): The PPA joined other creative sector organisations, including NMA, Associated Press, Motion Pictures Association, and British Copyright Council, on AI and copyright because, under the current unregulated conditions, big tech companies have been able to access and use the intellectual property of creators without any consequence or payment.

As a publishing sector we are excited by the opportunities that large language models (LLMs) bring for our members and their operations. But when people use chatbots in their everyday lives, both professionally and personally, the answers they are being given are often coming from trusted editorial brands, and those brands are not being paid for their work. It’s not ChatGPT coming up with the answer to the question of which laptop to buy or how to cook a lasagna. ChatGPT is copying the answers from publishers, who have invested money and expertise into its production. This is neither ethical nor sustainable.

TAIS: Why is the 'Make It Fair' initiative so important and how does it aim to influence government policy on AI and copyright laws?

EW: The ‘Make it Fair’ initiative is essential because without interventions from the Government, the creative industries, including publishers and their trusted editorial brands, will be unable to seek renumeration for the consumption and use of their works, potentially causing major issues to their businesses. AI is a part of our future that we all welcome, but if AI is going to continue to draw from human creativity, it must compensate those who generate it.

This campaign asks two key things from the government: 1) don’t water down copyright law to appease big tech companies, and 2) make sure they introduce transparency requirements for AI companies so that the widespread intellectual property theft can be addressed and a dynamic, sustainable licensing market can be established. This is what creatives need, this is what British consumers need, and this is ultimately what the tech companies need too.

TAIS: How might the unauthorised use of content by AI developers affect the economic sustainability of publishing houses and the livelihoods of content creators?

EW: The unauthorised use of content by AI developers has a hugely detrimental effect on the economy and sustainability of publishing houses.  Two key content revenue streams are subscriptions and digital advertising.

Subscriptions require consumers to pay for access to content that is of a high quality or even and often exclusive. AI companies have scraped this content from behind the paywall, offering it for free as an alternative without the permission or payment to the publishers.

Digital advertising revenue requires users to visit the websites for the publisher to be able to effectively monetise this content. Before chatbots, people would mostly access information from the internet via search engines. This would give publishers traffic, which in turn would lead to advertising revenue.  LLMs serve responses to user enquiries in one answer. While we would agree that this is convenient for the user, the fact that there is no traffic built in means that publishers gain no business advantage to their content being used, which isn’t sustainable.

TAIS: What risks do AI-generated content pose to the quality and trustworthiness of information circulated to the public?

EW: AI itself isn’t the problem, it is the practices of the large technology companies who control these AI products.

The widespread copyright infringement of AI companies is a major threat to the trustworthiness of content circulated to the public because it could force editorial brands who create content that is trustworthy and reliable to leave the market. Without high-quality journalism to act as an input for AI tools, there can be no high-quality outputs.  Hence, the government needs to introduce regulation to address these issues, not just for the sake of creative sectors that contribute over £125 billion to the economy, but for the sake of public interest and the need for true and accurate information on the internet.

TAIS: How can the publishing industry embrace AI innovations while safeguarding intellectual property rights and ensuring fair compensation?

EW: Publishers are already embracing AI innovations. Some have created LLMs with their own content, such as “Ask Nursing Times”.

Ours is a sector that has always embraced new technology, and AI is no different. AI just needs to exist in the market in a way that doesn’t involve copyright infringement. With the right regulation in place, there will be the right incentives for a dynamic licensing market to be established so that we can as a society and a digital economy make the most of AI and publishers.

Thank you to the PPA and Eilidh Wilson for their contribution. Eilidh Wilson leads the Policy and Public Affairs team at the PPA, and manages the trade body’s relationships with the Government, parliamentarians, and regulators.

Before working at the PPA, Eilidh worked in several policy, public affairs, and campaign roles for a professional body and a public affairs agency, with a particular interest in digital regulation.