Skip to content 
As I have made clear in numerous articles here, the threat of AI to authors and the greed exhibited by the creators of AI will be merciless. So I have posted another update on the Meta Copyright issue facing us all.
I have been contacted by a few authors and I am in talks with some funding providers so we should have some news in the next few weeks. So if you are interested in joining a class action, please do reach out.
Who is LibGen?
It is shadow library project, Library Genesis (abbreviated LibGen) provides file-sharing access to academic and popular books, magazines, comics, audiobooks, photographs, and scholarly journal articles. Content that is otherwise paywalled or not digitised elsewhere can be accessed for free on the website. LibGen calls itself a “links aggregator” and offers a searchable database of files submitted “by users” and materials “collected from publicly available public Internet resources.” In 2025, the website libgen.is was down from January to March.
Now Meta has been accused of scouring LibGen in its attempts at training AI models resulting in authors demanding action. The UK government has been slow in seeking to condemn Meta.
A number of well-known British authors, including Val McDermid, Kate Mosse, Richard Osman, and Kazuo Ishiguro, have signed an open letter calling on the UK government to look into Meta Platforms’ purported abuse of copyrighted works in response to growing concerns about where AI companies are sourcing their training materials. The Society of Authors (SoA) wrote the letter, which was made public as a petition on Change.org.
It charges the tech giant with illegally utilising thousands of books to train its AI models without permission.
Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport, is being urged by the authors to summon Meta’s top executives before Parliament. Their demands, which include the right of authors to get payment for the use of their intellectual property, independent of the medium, are based on both legal precedent and artistic principles.
Crime novelist Val McDermid stated, “There has always been a longstanding obligation that third parties compensate us when they make use of an author’s work.” “Photocopying, translation, and adaptation all acknowledge the author’s effort and the need for payment. As a crime writer, I am able to recognise thievery. Additionally, Meta is robbing us twice by exploiting illegal content.
The petition and open letter, which have already amassed almost 5,000 signatories, demonstrate the growing concern in the literary community with the unbridled development of generative AI and its reliance on content that has been improperly acquired or scraped.
A Court Case Exposes Meta’s Alleged Shadow Library Use
Following disclosures made earlier this year in the United States, the UK authors have expressed their outrage. In March 2025, novelists Richard Kadrey and Christopher Golden, as well as writer and comedian Sarah Silverman, filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms, releasing court records. The three allege that Meta’s huge language models were trained without their knowledge or consent using their copyrighted works.
According to the now-public records, Meta used LibGen, also called Library Genesis, a “shadow library” well-known in intellectual and literary circles for housing millions of illegally downloaded books. People looking for free access to typically paywalled or pricey materials regularly utilise the portal, which purportedly has over 7.5 million titles.
Even more concerning, it seems that CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally approved the use of LibGen as a source for AI training data, according to internal Meta email revealed in the filings. The idea that the decision originated at the highest levels of Meta has shocked the creative sectors, even though the corporation has not formally confirmed or denied the claims.
A searchable version of the LibGen database was released by The Atlantic on March 20, 2025, which further fuelled the controversy by enabling authors and rights holders to verify if their works had been included. The findings were startling: it was discovered that one of the most likely sources for training AI models was thousands of books written by active authors, many of whom depend on their writing for a living.
Mounting Legal and Ethical Concerns
A basic point at the centre of the discussion is whether it is morally or legally acceptable for computer corporations to use copyrighted content to train artificial intelligence without getting consent.
In the UK, the answer is unmistakably no, according to the Society of Authors.
According to the open letter, “it is illegal in the UK to scrape authors’ works for the purpose of generative AI training.” The fact that this clearly violates copyright law cannot be questioned. However, technological behemoths like Meta continue to operate within our borders without any meaningful investigation into their practices.
The letter also emphasises the real-world obstacles that individual writers must overcome in order to defend their rights: Given the high expense and difficulty of bringing a lawsuit against wealthy corporate defendants, authors are essentially helpless.
Copyright exists, according to author Kate Mosse, who called the scenario “another David and Goliath moment.” Strong terms and licencing clauses are included. The legislation is unambiguous. Meta needs to cease what it is doing, which is a massive heist. Fair is fair.
The Creative Economy’s Wider Effect
There is more to this copyright and AI dispute than just well-known authors. It concerns the fundamental tenet of the creative economy, which holds that all producers, be they writers, musicians, artists, or performers, should be fairly compensated for their labour.
The money that many professional writers make from their novels is minimal and achieved via hard work. It is not only offensive, but it also poses a threat to their livelihood because tech corporations can be using their labour to create AI systems worth billions of dollars without giving them credit or money.
The CEO of the Society of Authors, Nicola Solomon, stated that “generative AI does not emerge from a vacuum.” It is based on actual people’s labour. It is really frightening to think that it is okay to duplicate a whole library of books, feed them into an AI model, and receive nothing in return.
Authors and publishing experts contend that there are currently valid licensing procedures in place and that they ought to be adhered to. Through carefully crafted agreements, AI companies can acquire access to vast amounts of text if they require it for training purposes. A number of organisations, such as the Publishers Association in the UK and the Authors Guild in the US, have demanded the creation of industry-wide licensing systems that guarantee equity and openness.
Demands Regulatory Monitoring
Lawmakers in a number of nations are being compelled to examine stricter legislation as a result of the mounting criticism directed towards Meta and other AI firms.
It is anticipated that the forthcoming AI Act in the EU will contain clauses requiring businesses to reveal the data they use to train AI models. However, the UK government has not yet passed comparable regulations, and many inventors are concerned that if enforcement is not strict, the nation may turn into a safe haven for uncontrolled AI testing.
Clare Alexander, a literary agency, stated that “there needs to be greater transparency and accountability.” We must ascertain who is making money, where the data originates, and how these models are trained. We must be informed and compensated if authors’ works are being used.
The Way Ahead and Meta’s Silence
Meta has not yet released a formal statement regarding the disclosed court documents or replied to the writers’ open letter. Due to its AI training methods, the corporation has been sued numerous times in the US, including independently by musicians, news publishers, and visual artists.
One thing is becoming more and more obvious as the legal proceedings proceed and the pressure from both sides of the Atlantic increases: the generative AI era cannot disregard authors’ rights.
As AI is developed, authors are now asking for more than just payment—they want a place at the table. The problem is easy for them.
“Have respect for our job. Observe the law,” Val McDermid stated. “We are calling for equitable treatment, not obstructing innovation.”
It is also clear that this is not merely a literary conflict; rather, it is a turning point in the struggle for moral AI as more authors join the cause.
michael.coyle@lawdit.co.uk
07976724258
