An empty book that says a lot about the future of creation
Authors from around the world are drawing attention to a problem that keeps growing in the age of artificial intelligence. Around 10,000 writers, including heavyweight names like Nobel Laureate Kazuo Ishiguro, acclaimed historical novelist Philippa Gregory, and bestselling author Richard Osman, have come together to publish a book called Don’t Steal This Book. The most striking detail about this work is that it is practically empty. Instead of chapters, stories, essays, or any kind of narrative, the pages contain only an extensive list of the participants’ names. The message is as powerful as the silence that fills each page: if artificial intelligence can consume everything that authors produce without asking permission, then what is left for them to offer the world?
The protest has a very clear target — tech companies that use works protected by copyright to train their language models without requesting permission and, most importantly, without compensating the original creators. We are talking about systems that absorb millions of books, articles, scripts, and poems to generate texts that, ironically, end up competing directly with the people who wrote the training material. The initiative comes at a decisive moment in the United Kingdom, where the government is evaluating significant changes to copyright legislation that could make it even easier for big tech to use creative content.
Copies of the book were distributed at the London Book Fair, one of the biggest publishing events on the planet, on Tuesday. The timing was no accident. It was exactly one week before the British government was set to deliver an economic impact assessment on the proposed changes to copyright legislation, with a deadline of March 18. The distribution in this context reinforced the message in a powerful way: writers do not intend to stay silent while their work feeds machines that generate billions in profit.
Who is behind the initiative
The organizer of the book is Ed Newton-Rex, a composer and activist for the protection of artists’ copyrights. Newton-Rex has been a consistent voice in the debate over the misuse of creative works by AI companies. When presenting the initiative, he got straight to the point: the artificial intelligence industry was built on stolen work, taken without permission or payment.
According to him, this is not a victimless crime. Generative AI competes directly with the people whose work served as the foundation for training, stealing their livelihoods. Newton-Rex also made a direct appeal to the British government, asking it to protect the creative professionals of the United Kingdom and refuse to legalize the theft of works by artificial intelligence companies.
The list of authors who joined the protest goes far beyond Ishiguro, Gregory, and Osman. Writer Mick Herron, author of the Slow Horses series that became a hit on Apple TV+, also signed on. Marian Keyes, one of Ireland’s most popular novelists, is on the list. Historian David Olusoga, recognized for his work on British and colonial history, contributed his name. And Malorie Blackman, author of the celebrated Noughts and Crosses series, also participated, stating that it is by no means unreasonable to expect AI companies to pay for the use of authors’ books.
The back cover of the book carries an equally direct message: the UK government must not legalize the theft of books to benefit artificial intelligence companies.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
Why this protest matters right now
The discussion about copyright and artificial intelligence is not exactly new, but it has taken on a different urgency in recent months. In the United Kingdom, the government has been signaling that it may adopt an opt-out model, in which authors’ works would automatically be available for AI training unless the creator explicitly states they do not want to participate. For many writers, this completely flips the logic of copyright, which has historically protected the creator by default. Instead of companies needing to seek authorization before using a work, it would fall on the author to chase down and prevent the use — something that, in practice, is nearly impossible to enforce on a global scale.
But the government’s main proposal is not the only option on the table. According to the original article from The Guardian, ministers also suggested three additional alternatives: keeping things as they are, with no changes; requiring AI companies to seek licenses to use copyrighted works; or allowing AI companies to use copyrighted works with no opt-out possibility for creators and creative businesses. On top of that, the government has not ruled out the possibility of a copyright exemption for materials used for commercial research purposes, which deeply concerns creative professionals who fear this loophole could be exploited by AI companies to take artistic work without authorization.
This scenario explains why the release of Don’t Steal This Book happened right at the London Book Fair. The authors involved know that the political moment is critical and that the window to influence legislation is closing. By March 18, the British government needs to deliver to parliament both the economic impact assessment and an update on the progress of the public consultation regarding these legal changes. The protest is not just symbolic, although the symbolism is quite effective. It is an organized attempt to pressure lawmakers into recognizing that intellectual creation has economic and cultural value, and that allowing its free exploitation by billion-dollar corporations harms an entire creative chain that stretches from independent writers to major publishers.
A spokesperson for the British government stated that the government wants a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, that is trustworthy, and that unlocks innovation. They also guaranteed that the government will continue to engage with the creative sector on the matter and will fulfill the commitment to update parliament by March 18.
The publishing industry is also making moves
The authors’ protest is not happening in isolation. At the same London Book Fair, publishers also launched an AI licensing initiative. Publishers’ Licensing Services, a nonprofit entity in the publishing sector, is creating a collective licensing scheme and has invited the entire industry to participate. The expectation is that this model will offer legal access to published works, creating a viable path for AI companies to use copyrighted content in a regulated and compensated manner.
This movement shows that the publishing sector is not just protesting — it is also proposing practical solutions. The idea of a collective licensing system could work similarly to what already exists in the music industry, where collective management organizations administer rights and distribute royalties. If well implemented, this kind of structure could benefit both creators and tech companies, offering a sustainable model that respects intellectual property without stalling innovation.
Artists from other fields are protesting too
Writers are not alone in this fight. Artists from various creative fields have been speaking out against the weakening of copyright laws to benefit AI companies. One of the most vocal names is Elton John, who called the British government absolute losers over their plans related to copyright and artificial intelligence. The legendary musician’s statement significantly amplified the visibility of the debate, pushing the discussion beyond literary and tech circles.
This widespread outrage among creative professionals reflects a shared concern: if governments do not act to protect creators now, the precedent set could be devastating for the entire creative economy. Musicians, visual artists, photographers, filmmakers, and writers are all in the same boat — their work is scraped from the internet and used as fuel for AI systems that generate billions in revenue without returning virtually anything to the original creators.
The legal landscape is already heating up
It is worth noting that the courts are also being called into action. The original article mentions that Anthropic, the company behind the chatbot Claude and one of the leaders in the AI sector, agreed to pay 1.5 billion dollars (roughly 1.1 billion pounds) to settle a class action lawsuit brought by book authors. The writers alleged that the startup used pirated copies of their works to train its main product. This billion-dollar settlement is one of the largest ever recorded in the field of intellectual property related to artificial intelligence and signals that the courts are taking creators’ claims seriously.
In the United States, major lawsuits involving companies like OpenAI and Meta are also underway, with authors accusing these companies of massive copyright infringement. Specialized platforms can already identify exactly how much copyrighted content was used in training AI tools, such as chatbots and image generators. The difference is that, in the British context, the threat comes directly from the legislature, which could institutionalize unrestricted access to creative content. This would make the United Kingdom an especially tough place for anyone who makes a living writing, composing, or creating any type of protected work.
The real impact of AI on writers’ work
When we talk about artificial intelligence trained on literary works, we are not dealing with an abstract or distant threat. Text generation tools are already capable of producing content that mimics styles, reproduces narrative structures, and even simulates the voice of specific authors. This means that a writer who spent years developing a unique style can see that style replicated by an algorithm that learned from their own books — without credit, without compensation, and without any kind of recognition.
For professionals who depend on royalties and publishing contracts, this reality is already affecting their income in concrete ways. Recent research indicates that the market for AI-generated content is growing at a rapid pace, pushing down the value paid for original texts written by humans. Generative AI, as Newton-Rex pointed out, competes directly with the people whose work served as the foundation for its training, creating a vicious cycle in which the creator is simultaneously the raw material and the competitor of the final product.
Another point that deserves attention is the issue of transparency. So far, most artificial intelligence companies do not publicly disclose which works were used to train their models. This creates an absurd situation where an author does not even know if their work was used, let alone have the ability to claim any kind of payment. The protest behind Don’t Steal This Book also touches on this sensitive point, demanding greater transparency from big tech about the data feeding their systems. Without this basic information, defending copyrights becomes a battle fought blindfolded.
The issue also affects the publishing ecosystem as a whole. Publishers, literary agents, translators, and editors form a chain that depends directly on the value attributed to original creation. If copyright legislation is weakened to benefit tech companies, the impact goes far beyond individual writers — it hits an entire industry that generates billions and employs millions of people around the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the decisions made in the coming months could reshape the balance between technological innovation and creative protection for decades.
What lies ahead
Publishing an empty book might seem, at first glance, like a performative gesture. But the weight of the names involved and the political context in which the action takes place show that the message runs much deeper. The 10,000 authors who signed Don’t Steal This Book represent a significant portion of the global literary community, and the participation of figures like Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory, and Malorie Blackman gives the protest a visibility that would be hard to achieve any other way.
The movement also connects with similar actions in other countries and with the multimillion-dollar lawsuits being fought in American and British courts. The Getty Images lawsuit against Stability AI in the British High Court, for example, is another emblematic case that illustrates how different creative sectors are turning to the justice system to protect their rights. Together, these initiatives create international pressure that artificial intelligence companies and governments will find increasingly difficult to ignore.
The debate over copyright in the age of AI is far from resolved, but initiatives like this one help keep the topic at the center of public conversation. The creation of the collective licensing scheme by Publishers’ Licensing Services could represent an important step toward a more balanced model, but everything depends on how governments choose to legislate on the matter. For anyone who follows technology and content creation, it is worth keeping an eye on the upcoming decisions by the British government on copyright, because they could serve as a model — positive or negative — for other countries around the world.
At the end of the day, the question this empty book asks is pretty simple: if human creativity has value, why should it be handed over for free to feed machines that generate profit for a few? 🤔
