Authors, what have you got to lose? (save for your respect, sanity and livelihood) Too much? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
An Open Letter to All UK Authors: Stand Up for Your Creative Rights
Hello
As a solicitor advocate who has fought for creators’ rights for decades, this is for you. I am Michael Coyle, the founder of Lawdit Solicitors, and I am contacting all authors in the UK, regardless of whether they are self-published, traditionally published, poets, journalists, or any other type of writer. We are at a turning point. Our copyrighted books have been used by big tech companies, like Facebook’s owner Meta Platforms, to train AI models without our consent.
In my opinion, this technique is illegal under UK copyright law in addition to being immoral. In the age of artificial intelligence, it is imperative that we unite and act to protect our creative rights.
We need to take action now because it might be too late by 2028
I lay forth a plan of action in this letter and invite your participation. If (or when) Meta in the UK ignores our joint Letter of Claim or tries to drag us into a US court, we will be prepared to bring a lawsuit here in the joint Kingdom. I will go over the legal justification, the actions we must do, the risks, and how we may reduce those risks by banding together, getting the best legal counsel, and perhaps even securing money. Since Meta is a trillion-dollar Goliath and we are individual Davids, our goal is lofty and the challenge is formidable. However, as one British author so eloquently stated, “Copyright law is not complicated… If you use [an author’s work] without permission you’re breaking the law… It’ll be incredibly difficult for us… to take on Meta, but we’ll have a good go!”
I invite you to have a good go with me: together we can hold Meta accountable for the unlawful use of our books.
Why We Must Act Now!
Every book you write is automatically protected under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 from the moment you pen it. No one—not even a tech giant—is allowed to copy it without permission. Yet, recent revelations have shown that Meta pirated millions of books from a “shadow library” (Library Genesis, or LibGen) to train its AI model Llama.
Internal communications from Meta, made public in court filings, indicate that Meta’s own employees knew the legal risks but decided to proceed anyway, even getting approval from Mark Zuckerberg to download these books.
The Society of Authors has called Meta’s actions “illegal, shocking, and utterly devastating for writers”.
This is not an exaggeration: our years of hard work have been taken to enrich an AI system, without so much as a request or royalty. If we do nothing, we allow this to continue unabated.
As I warned in a recent piece, AI is moving fast, and if we wait, by 2028 it may be too late to reclaim our rights.
This is why we must act. The window to assert our rights and set legal precedents is open now. Authors in the US, such as Sarah Silverman and others, have already filed class-action lawsuits against Meta for this very issue.
Here in the UK, we have strong copyright laws and no broad “fair use” loophole that would excuse what Meta has done. Under UK law, copying books wholesale for commercial AI training is likely infringement, plain and simple – our “fair dealing” and data mining exceptions do not cover large-scale commercial use without consent.
Meta’s spokesperson may claim they “respect … intellectual property rights” and believe their AI training is “consistent with existing law”, but we strongly disagree. We cannot rely on Meta to police itself; we must assert our rights through legal action.
Sending a United Letter of Claim to Meta
The first concrete step is to send a formal Letter of Claim to Meta here in the UK. A Letter of Claim (sometimes called a “letter before action”) is the proper legal way to put Meta on notice that we intend to bring a claim for copyright infringement. It will set out the basis of our claim: that Meta has unlawfully reproduced and used copyrighted books (including works by UK authors) to train its AI models without permission or payment. It will detail the harm this causes to authors and ask for remedies – typically a cessation of the infringing activity and compensation for past infringement.
Why start with a letter? Because in the UK, court rules and good practice require giving the other party a chance to respond and potentially resolve the issue before formal litigation. It demonstrates that we are serious and organised. Our letter will be signed by a collective of UK authors – the more, the better. Whether you are a bestselling novelist or a part-time poet, if your work has been taken without consent, your voice belongs on that letter. It shows Meta that this is a unified group of creators standing up for our rights.
We fully expect Meta’s initial reaction to be dismissive. They might ignore the letter altogether or send back a generic denial of wrongdoing. They may even attempt to argue that any dispute should be handled in California under US law (since Meta is a US company). Let me address that: Meta’s attempt to defer to California jurisdiction will not deter us. We are UK citizens whose works were created under and protected by UK law. Meta operates in the UK (with offices in London and services available to UK users), and it has to answer to UK law when it infringes UK copyrights. We will make it clear in our letter that we do not accept shuffling this issue off to a distant jurisdiction or letting Meta hide behind complex choice-of-law arguments. Still, we must be prepared for silence or deflection. That leads us to the next step.
Preparing for a Legal Claim in UK Courts
If (and likely when) Meta fails to adequately address our Letter of Claim, the next step is to file a legal claim in the UK courts. This means submitting formal legal pleadings – a Claim Form and Particulars of Claim – initiating a lawsuit for copyright infringement. This would be done in the High Court of England and Wales (most likely the Intellectual Property list of the Business and Property Courts, given the subject matter). In our claim, each author as a claimant will assert that Meta has infringed their copyright by copying their work without authorisation for AI training. We will rely on evidence that has already come to light, such as the internal Meta communications showing deliberate use of pirated book datasets.
Importantly, bringing the claim in the UK allows us to invoke UK copyright law, which I firmly believe is on our side. Unlike in the US, Meta cannot lean on a broad fair use defence here. The UK’s fair dealing exceptions are narrower and, crucially, do not permit commercial text-and-data mining without permission when it conflicts with normal exploitation of the work. Meta’s use of entire books to develop a profit-driving AI model is far outside any fair dealing defence. It’s also not covered by the recent text and data mining exception (which, even before it was reformed, did not allow usage for commercial purposes without authorisation). In short, we believe Meta has no valid defence under UK law for this mass infringement of copyright – a view I have publicly shared and stand by.
Now, let’s be realistic. Meta will hire top lawyers to fight us. They might deploy technical arguments or stall tactics. For instance, they might contest the jurisdiction of UK courts or argue that no “copy” was made in the UK. They might try to analogise to the old Google Books case in the US or claim an “implied licence” or other novel theories. We will be ready to counter these. The extensive, commercial nature of the copying, the lack of any consent, and the clear value Meta derived from our content all bolster our case. And remember, Meta will be under pressure too: the potential damages for using possibly thousands of books without license could be immense. Meta will not want this to actually go to a full trial with a large damages award and a precedent against them, so they may seek a settlement once they see we’re serious.
Our willingness to litigate in UK court is our strongest leverage to force Meta either to come to the table or face judgement.
The Risk: Understanding What’s at Stake
Before charging ahead, I must make clear the risks involved in bringing such a claim. Litigation against a deep-pocketed company like Meta is not a journey to undertake lightly. In the UK legal system, the general rule is “loser pays”. This means if we bring a claim and for some reason do not succeed, the court could order us (the claimants) to pay Meta’s legal costs. Those costs could be enormous – easily running into hundreds of thousands, even millions, of pounds, given the length and complexity a case like this might entail. This is the single biggest deterrent that stops individuals from suing big companies. Meta knows this, and they could try to intimidate us with the threat of mounting legal bills.
Additionally, litigation can be a lengthy process – it might take a year or more if it goes all the way, with no guarantee of victory. We have to acknowledge the possibility that a court might not rule in our favour. Perhaps the court could find some technical reason, or Parliament might change the law mid-stream (for example, there has been governmental discussion about AI and copyright exceptions). We must go in with eyes wide open: there is a chance, however small we believe it is, that we could lose the case and be left not only without compensation, but owing legal fees.
Does this risk mean we should do nothing? Absolutely not. It means we must be smart and strategic in how we proceed. The stakes—the future of creative professions, the principle that artists should be asked (and paid) before their work is used to train AI—are simply too important. However, each of us likely cannot shoulder this burden alone. Most writers are not wealthy. (A recent survey found the median income for authors in the UK is around £7,000, illustrating that many of us barely scrape by as is.) If one author tries to take on Meta alone, that financial risk would be overwhelming. But together, we can share the load—and there are concrete ways to mitigate the risks.
Mitigating the Risks: Strength in Numbers and Support
Taking on Meta may feel like a David and Goliath battle, but remember that David won by using smart strategy. Here’s how we can greatly reduce the risks and improve our chances of success:
Form a United Claimant Group: There is strength in numbers. By banding together as a group of claimants, we share the potential costs and also multiply the pressure on Meta. A collective action means Meta faces not one lone writer, but an army of UK authors from all walks of life. This also helps to spread any financial risk. In a group litigation, if costs were awarded against us, they could be split among many people (and we can agree up front how to cap each individual’s exposure). Knowing that dozens or hundreds of authors stand together also sends a powerful message to the court and the public. It builds momentum and media attention, which can encourage Meta to settle and may even attract more authors to join our cause as it progresses.
Legal Allies – Barristers and Solicitors on Our Side: We will seek out barristers and solicitors who are passionate about this issue and willing to support our claim on reasonable terms. I can tell you there are many in the legal community (myself included) who view Meta’s actions as a blatant abuse of creative people’s rights and are eager to help correct this. Some top-notch intellectual property barristers have already voiced interest in such cases. With a strong legal team that believes in the cause, we can negotiate fee arrangements that lessen the upfront burden. For example, lawyers can work on a conditional fee agreement – essentially a “no win, no fee” deal – where they defer some or all of their fees unless the case succeeds. (Under such an arrangement, if we win, the lawyers may receive a success uplift paid by the losing side or from damages; if we lose, they write off a large portion of fees. It aligns their interests with ours and protects us if the case doesn’t succeed.) We will also look for firms (like my own and others) willing to contribute time and resources because this case is as much about principle as payment. Experienced IP litigators, working together, can handle this complex litigation and give us the best shot at victory.
Litigation Funding and Insurance: In addition to supportive lawyers, we are exploring litigation funders – companies that specialise in financing legal cases that have strong merits and significant potential damages. A litigation funder could agree to pay for the legal costs of the case (barristers, court fees, expert witnesses, etc.), in exchange for a percentage of any damages or settlement we win. More importantly, a responsible funder would typically also cover the adverse costs of insurance (often through an After-the-Event (ATE) insurance policy). That means if we lost, an insurance policy would pay Meta’s legal costs, shielding the claimant authors from that burden. Engaging a funder requires showing them that the case is solid and the potential recovery (maybe in the form of a settlement or damages from Meta) is worth their investment. I believe our case would attract interest from funders, given the scope of infringement (potentially millions of infringements if each book is a separate instance) and the public interest nature. We are already reaching out to such funders and have had encouraging early conversations. Likewise, we will approach law firms who might act on a contingency basis (where their payment comes only from a successful outcome). The key point here is: we can mitigate financial risk by securing outside backing and guarantees, so that individual authors are not left personally owing massive costs if things go wrong.
In short, by uniting as a group and leveraging available legal tools (conditional fees, insurance, funding), we can make this fight economically feasible. I will coordinate assembling this support network – but I need to know that you, the authors, are willing to stand behind this effort. If we show there’s a critical mass of writers ready to fight, the lawyers and funders will come.
Last but not least, I implore you to join your peers in speaking up. You may participate in a pivotal time for authors’ rights in the twenty-first century by joining this collective action. By working together, we can make Meta (and all tech corporations) aware that our creations are not yours to take. Now is the moment to make a decision. Together, let us make sure that Letter of Claim is heard clearly. And if Meta disregards us or attempts to avoid accountability, let us take them to court and demonstrate that the pen—supported by the law—is still superior than the technology.
This is an appeal to defend not only our literature but also the idea that artistic creations are valuable and should be valued. I hope you will stand with me as I stand prepared to defend that concept on your behalf.
Regards,
Michael
Founder and Solicitor Advocate of Lawdit Solicitors (UK)
12 April of 2025
