UK Creator Groups to Anthropic: Pay the Writers First, Not 5%

Four UK creator collecting societies have told Anthropic to pay the creators whose work it uses before pledging shares for the "public good" — and they want a device levy that could raise up to £300m a year to make it happen.

The demand comes in a letter signed by Barbara Hayes, chief executive of the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS); Tayyiba Nasser of the British Equity Collecting Society (BECS); Christian Zimmermann of the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS); and Paul Seheult of PICSEL.

The letter responds to Anthropic's proposal — reported on 19 October — to commit 5% of its shares to a fund for "public good". The four chief executives say that pledge raises a simpler question: who should benefit from technological progress? Their answer: "Before pledging money for the public good, AI companies such as Anthropic should first pay the creators whose work they use."

What do the numbers say about creator incomes?

The letter leans on stark earnings data, drawn from surveys published in 2022 and 2018 respectively:

• Visual artists' median annual earnings sit at just £12,500 — 47% lower in real terms than in 2010.
• Authors earn a median of £7,000 from writing, down from £11,300.
• Audiovisual performers report median annual earnings from performing of £17,500.

Put differently, a typical UK author now earns less than a third of the UK's median full-time salary from writing. The letter describes creators as being on "persistently low and falling incomes".

How would the Smart Fund work?

The proposal targets a different layer of the value chain: device manufacturers. Smartphones, computers and other devices enable creative work to be copied and stored, the letter argues, yet UK creators receive no private-copying payments — unlike their counterparts in more than 40 other countries.

The proposed Smart Fund would require manufacturers and importers to make "modest contributions" on devices used to copy or store creative work. The societies estimate it could raise up to £300m a year. That money would provide creators with additional income and support skills programmes, cultural initiatives and affordable workspaces.

For a working author earning the £7,000 median, even a modest annual payment from a £300m pot would be a tangible difference, not a rounding error.

What does this change for the AI debate?

The letter reframes the argument around Anthropic's equity pledge. Rather than accepting a diffuse commitment to public benefit, the collecting societies want payment routed to the specific people whose work underpins the technology.

"It is creators' work that attracts people to technology, sustains their engagement and drives innovation," the letter states. "Those creators should share in the value their work helps generate, so they can continue creating and powering that cycle."

The signatories extend the same principle to hardware. If a device maker profits from equipment built to copy and store creative work, they argue, the creator behind that work deserves a cut — the same logic more than 40 countries already apply through private-copying remuneration schemes.

The letter closes with a direct call on government: "The government should turn this principle into action by introducing the Smart Fund."

That leaves two tracks running in parallel. Anthropic faces pressure to compensate creators directly before — or instead of — broad philanthropic pledges. Device manufacturers and importers face the prospect of a UK levy that most of Europe already operates. For creators watching median incomes slide since 2010, the £300m question is whether ministers act on either.