My name is June Steward and I am a fundraising copywriter from Australia, representing a group of charity copywriters angry and concerned about the use of their IP to train and guide AI models and tools without our knowledge and consent.

Our work includes writing high-performing copy for direct mail and email appeals and other fundraising campaigns, cases for support and other donor communications.

I am speaking up about this issue now because I am one of the few copywriters in the charity sector who can. Other copywriters are afraid to speak out and wish to remain anonymous as they are worried about losing contracts or jobs. I'm aware I am taking a big risk and may lose work because of it.

THE PROBLEM

For several years now people have been asking me whether AI would take my job as a copywriter. I have not been concerned because the work we do is very specialised. We don't just write copy. We apply best practice direct response principles, audience insights, behaviourial nudges, decision science, donor psychology and more to the appeals and campaigns we work on. This is not simple to generate through AI - I have extensively tested LLMs to do this and the results are very inconsistent and unusable.

Over the last couple of years, we have become increasingly aware of charities and agencies using AI or developing bots to create AI-generated copy.

I am not necessarily against any AI use. I have accepted some people may find AI copy "good enough" for them. Or it's cheaper so they'll just use the bot. That's fine as long as you use your own words and ideas. If you have a past appeal or newsletter article that you have written yourself then go ahead and use AI.

What is not fine is to take the direct mail copy or donor comms we have written and use it to train your bot or upload it into any AI tool to help shape your next appeal or case for support.

It is not fine to take the direct mail letter I wrote for you and put it into AI to generate your EDMs.

I am aware this behaviour has been occurring at a much larger scale over the last 12 months. Murmurings from other copywriters who are unhappy over their work potentially being used in this way. Anger from copywriters whose work IS being used in this way.

I have no issue if you take our DM letter and a human looks at it and takes the key messages to write your EDMs and socials... as has been done before generative AI became a thing.

But putting it into AI to do it for you - HARD NO.

IP OWNERSHIP AND CONSENT

Ownership of the IP is a grey area. If you are an employee at a charity or agency, then your employer owns the IP in your work. In a case like mine, where I am contracted to provide copy for a charity, the contract specifies who owns the IP.

Some copywriters sign contracts assigning the IP to the client. However, because I have never used contracts with my clients, technically, I still own the IP. But I have been advised the client can argue they have an implied right to do as they wish with the copy, which may include uploading into an AI tool.

Now this is a grey area subject to legal testing. But even if it is legal, it is unethical.

I'm going to put it out there and some people will not like it.

If you put our work into AI to generate future copy, you are using it without my consent or the consent of the writers who work for me. You are stealing my livelihood and theirs.

And if you employ a copywriter and do this, you may technically own the IP to their work but you are stealing their livelihood.

I'll say it again:

Using or uploading into an AI tool the work of your copywriters without their knowledge, consent and/ or appropriate compensation specifically for that AI use is not okay.

Even if you argue that is legal, it is not ethical.

Whether a copywriter is a permanent employee or a contractor… whether they signed a contract assigning IP or not… when they started working with a charity or agency, they likely never expected they would have to deal with this AI-related IP issue.

They never got a chance to explicitly consent or negotiate the rights to how that IP is used when it comes to generative AI. Maybe (and it is only a maybe) charities and agencies can claim they have the law on their side. But these copywriters did not then know the rights to that IP would become the rights to their ability to earn a living.

In all my own testing of AI I have done myself, I have only ever used my own copy and my own work. I have never used the work of any other copywriter including those who work for me.

Make no mistake. When charities and agencies steal our work without our consent, they are contributing to inequities that lead to poverty. This is also a gendered act, disproportionately affecting women. ABS Census Data shows copywriters are 66% female. The majority of freelance writers asking me for work are women trying to balance family and work.

Most copywriters are not high earners. Many writers I work with or know are mums with limited hours to freelance and would be well under the Australian median income, which is currently $74,100 (both FTE and PTE according to the ABS). Some are single mums.

You can read more about the irony of charities contributing to the inequities they're supposed to be stamping out here.

PRECEDENT FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRITERS & CREATIVES

Increasingly, there is recognition that writers and creatives should be compensated if their work is used to train generative AI. While the cases below relate to book publishing and news, there is precedent.

Microsoft + HarperCollins deal: thousands of non-fiction authors were offered the choice (they could say no) to opt in to a three-year license allowing an AI company to use their books to train an AI model. Read details here, here and here plus an author who accepted the deal here.

Bartz vs Anthropic class action: you know how Anthropic downloaded all those pirated books to train their AI? Now there’s a $1.5 billion settlement fund - the court gave final approval in July this year. Read details here, here and here plus a LinkedIn post here.

Prorata.ai: their business model is set up to compensate creators. Read details here.

OpenAI + News Corp: technically it is the publisher not the writers who got paid but still a recognition that writing labour used with AI should receive compensation. Read here.

Plus the Australian PM made a public commitment in July to ensuring creatives were adequately compensated for the use of their work in AI training:

“Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work… No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control. That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work. Anything less, is theft. No country has got this right yet. Nowhere do artists or rights holders have sufficient control of their work, when it comes to AI training.”

Generative AI technology is developing at a much faster rate than any of us can keep up with. It took me a long time to understand my legal position and even to figure out how I wanted us to work with generative AI. Hence we are here now.

PLEASE HELP WITH LEGAL COSTS

We are trying to raise $10,000 to cover legal help to protect the livelihoods of fundraising copywriters and the use of our IP, including my own.

Because the costs of this are high for our small business, I am inviting other fundraising writers, creatives and sympathetic friends to support this campaign.

I have committed $2500 personally to these costs already and hope to raise the remainder from other kind and generous people.

Mary Anne Plummer, well-known fundraising copywriter from Exuberance, has made a starting pledge of $1500. She says:

"AI-generated copy is not just a threat to the livelihoods of Exuberance writers. It cheapens trust and connection. It treats donors as just another resource to be managed and commodified. It will undoubtedly make someone a lot of money - but it won't be charities who benefit in the long run."

Another copywriter has pledged $750. She wishes to stay anonymous as she is concerned about potentially losing work and she has a family to support.

Several other copywriters have indicated they wish to support but can only manage a small amount or can't currently afford it as they do not make a lot from copywriting.

When you donate to this campaign, you are helping your charity copywriters to retain their livelihoods as well as keeping trust, authenticity and the human element in fundraising communications.

Because we are unsure of the final cost of this legal assistance, which has been quoted at between $7000-$10,000, if we have money leftover or raise more than we need, we will do one of the following:

Read more about our position on this issue here.