Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Margaret Atwood and James Patterson were among the prominent names on an Authors Guild open letter asking major AI companies to obtain permission to use writers’ work, credit authors, and pay for certain uses. The letter, issued July 18, 2023, was an advocacy demand—not a lawsuit or a finding that any named author’s copyright had been infringed. A later Anthropic settlement created a route to payments for some qualifying books, but it did not automatically compensate everyone who signed.
What the writers asked AI companies to do
The Authors Guild’s July 18, 2023, letter argued that books, articles, essays, and poetry had supplied material for generative-AI systems and that writers should not be left without permission, credit, or compensation. It asked company leaders to:
- Get authors’ permission before using copyrighted works in generative-AI programs.
- Compensate writers for past and continuing use of their work in AI systems.
- Pay for use of writers’ work in AI-generated output, including some uses that might not violate existing copyright law.
The letter did not set a payment rate or establish a licensing mechanism. It also did not create a legal right to payment simply by being signed. The open letter framed the demands as a response to what the Guild and signatories characterized as commercial use of writing without consent, credit, or compensation.
Who signed, and why reports gave different totals
The signatories included Atwood, Patterson, Dan Brown, Jennifer Egan, David Baldacci, Michael Chabon, Nora Roberts, Jesmyn Ward, Jodi Picoult, Ron Chernow, Michael Pollan, Suzanne Collins, Jonathan Franzen, Roxane Gay, Celeste Ng, Louise Erdrich, Viet Thanh Nguyen, George Saunders, Min Jin Lee, Andrew Solomon, Rebecca Makkai, and Tobias Wolff, among others. The Authors Guild’s announcement and signatory list identifies the writers and supporters who backed the letter.
#1 Best Overall
Coverage published as the list was growing reported varying totals, including more than 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000. The Los Angeles Times reported more than 9,000 on July 19, 2023; the Guild later said more than 15,000 writers and supporters had signed. These figures describe different snapshots, not necessarily contradictory counts. The later total includes supporters as well as writers.
Which companies received the letter
The letter was addressed to leaders of OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, Stability AI, IBM, and Microsoft. Those are the companies named in the 2023 letter; the names should be read as a historical record of its intended recipients, not as a claim that every company used every signatory’s work.
Why the dispute mattered to writers
The concern was broader than whether a model might reproduce a passage word for word. Signatories argued that writers’ work helped develop commercial systems without authors receiving payment or credit, while AI tools could generate large volumes of competing text. They also raised concerns about imitation of distinctive language and stories, and about possible effects on writing markets and already-low author incomes. Those were the signatories’ arguments and policy concerns, not findings established by the letter itself.
Copyright questions also differ depending on what happened to a work. Training disputes can involve whether a work was copied, how it was acquired, and whether the use is fair use. Output disputes ask whether generated text reproduces protected expression, creates an infringing derivative work, or harms a market. The letter settled none of those questions.
Rank #3
The letter was not a lawsuit
Signing the letter did not make an author a plaintiff in a case. The Authors Guild says it and 17 authors filed a separate class-action lawsuit against OpenAI on September 19, 2023, alleging infringement involving fiction writers’ works used to train GPT. That case has its own plaintiffs, claims, and legal process; a letter signer is not automatically a plaintiff, class member, or claimant. The Guild’s AI FAQ describes the separate litigation.
What the 2026 Anthropic settlement does—and does not—cover
In July 2026, a court granted final approval to a $1.5 billion settlement in litigation involving authors’ allegations that Anthropic used pirated copies of books. The settlement is a concrete payment development, but it is not a blanket award to the Authors Guild letter’s signers. According to the Associated Press, the reported amount is about $3,000 per qualifying book, subject to eligibility rules. The settlement administrator lists March 30, 2026, as the claims deadline, which has passed. See the settlement administrator’s site and the Authors Guild’s approval announcement for the terms and notices.
Rank #4
The legal distinction behind the settlement matters: the sources describe a court ruling that treated training on lawfully acquired books as fair use, while the separate acquisition and storage of millions of pirated books led to the settlement. The settlement’s release concerns specified past conduct; it is not a universal license for AI training or a final ruling on every output-related claim. The result should not be simplified to “AI training is legal” or “AI training is illegal.”
Nothing in the letter’s signatory list establishes that Atwood’s or Patterson’s books were among the works covered by the Anthropic settlement, or that either author received money. Eligibility depends on the covered works and settlement rules, not celebrity status or having signed the 2023 letter.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What authors and publishers should check
For an individual writer, the practical issue is often who controls the relevant rights and whether a particular use or settlement applies. The Authors Guild recommends contract language that reserves AI-training and AI-output rights unless an author expressly licenses them for negotiated compensation. Its AI model clauses and model contract overview offer examples; they are advocacy resources, not a substitute for advice on a specific publishing agreement.
- Check whether you or a publisher owns or controls the relevant copyright, and what rights your contract grants or reserves.
- Distinguish permission for model training from claims about text generated by a model; they are separate issues.
- For a settlement or class notice, verify that the specific work, rightsholder, and conduct meet the official eligibility terms.
- Do not assume a public letter, a lawsuit, and a settlement claim have the same participants or consequences.
The broader questions—how to license training uses, how to identify source material, and how to address output and market effects—remain distinct from the limited payment route created by the Anthropic settlement.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
