Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
SoA considers separate per-book consent a step forward but opposes a standard 50:50 split and questions continued model use without further payment after a three-year licence expires.
What changed
SoA considers separate per-book consent a step forward but opposes a standard 50:50 split and questions continued model use without further payment after a three-year licence expires.
The organisation’s assessment concerns proposals seen by some nonfiction authors. It is neither unqualified support nor proof that revised terms have been agreed.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: individual refusals coexist with organisational efforts toward paid licensing; disputes concern amounts, duration and control of permission.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
SoA considers separate per-book consent a step forward but opposes a standard 50:50 split and questions continued model use without further payment after a three-year licence expires.
SRC-0097Main text, lines 20–35: per-book consent, revenue split, three-year term and continued model use
Case
Related documents
DOC-0085The SoA responds to the HarperCollins AI licensing dealCite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “SoA welcomes per-book consent while criticising revenue splits and duration.” evt-0099. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.