Academics say publisher Taylor & Francis hadn't told them about selling access to authors' research as part of a $10M+ Microsoft AI deal, nor let them opt out
The big publishers continue to rent-seek & exploit scholars...expect all the other major academic publishers. … Ben Williamson / @BenPatrickWill@mastodon.social : As an editor of a journal publishing critical work on tech, and an editor of a Routledge collection on AI in education, I'll be writing to our publisher on Monday about its $10m deal with Microsoft for AI training data https://www.thebookseller.com/ ... Apostolos K. / @koutropoulos@social.ds106.us : I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! (NOT!) Academic authors ‘shocked’ after Taylor & Francis sells access to their research to Microsoft AI https://www.thebookseller.com/ ... LinkedIn: Lydia Khalil : This is pretty outrageous though not surprising. Academic publishing has always been a total scam. … Rebecca Clements : This is so egregious & unethical. Academic publishing is already broken but even that doesn't make selling the work of authors to AI training models without … Forums: Hacker News : Academics shocked after T&F sells access to their research to Microsoft AI r/academia : Surprise surprise! Your research feeds AI! See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The reported arrangement sharpens a conflict already visible in calls for writers and publishers to seek compensation and a share of AI’s value: rights holders may be negotiating with model developers while the individual creators whose work is supplied have limited visibility or leverage.
The issue is not simply whether research can be used for AI training, but who controls the licensing decision and the proceeds when a publisher aggregates scholarly work. Later coverage of a university press licensing authors’ books for AI training suggests this is becoming a recurring publishing-industry choice rather than an isolated dispute.
First-order effects
- Taylor & Francis faces immediate pressure from affected academics to explain the reported Microsoft arrangement, the scope of included research, and why authors were not offered notice or an opt-out.
- Authors and editors associated with the publisher must assess whether existing publishing terms gave the publisher authority to license their work for AI training, while Microsoft gains access to a potentially valuable research corpus under the reported deal.
Second-order effects
- Other scholarly publishers considering AI-data licensing will face stronger demands for explicit author notification, consent mechanisms, and clearer treatment of any licensing revenue.
- The dispute gives author groups a concrete example for their broader push to organize around AI compensation, potentially raising the transaction and reputational costs of opaque bulk-content deals.
Third-order effects
- If publishers continue to treat back catalogs as licensable AI inputs, scholarly publishing contracts may increasingly become the venue for deciding creators’ control over downstream model use and payment.
- The market could split between publishers that offer transparent, negotiated AI licensing and those relying on broad legacy rights clauses; the latter approach carries enduring trust and governance risk if author opposition persists.
The trend: AI developers’ demand for high-quality text is turning publisher-controlled archives into a contested licensing market, with consent and revenue-sharing becoming central terms.