this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1432 readers
16 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
1
Academic authors 'shocked' after Taylor & Francis sells access to their research to Microsoft AI (www.thebookseller.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Authors have expressed their shock after the news that academic publisher Taylor & Francis, which owns Routledge, had sold access to its authors’ research as part of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) partnership with Microsoft—a deal worth almost £8m ($10m) in its first year.

On top of it all, that is such a low-ball number from Microsoft

The agreement with Microsoft was included in a trading update by the publisher’s parent company in May this year. However, academics published by the group claim they have not been told about the AI deal, were not given the opportunity to opt out and are receiving no extra payment for the use of their research by the tech company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Exactly. There needs to be a proper lawsuit challenging AI businesses, and the fact they're taking out these contracts now, after the fact, suggests they know they're liable. They've tried hiding behind the fair use research exemption, however their "research" is complete private and secret, offers no benefit to the academic community, and is entirely driven by commercial product development.

I wonder if individual users have standing to claim for the initial harvesting from before these licenses? At the time, while they got it from reddit or wherever, they collected it without any license, which I think means the original rights holder should be able to sue.