A backlist title can sit for years with no print run, almost no sales, and still not revert to its author. Now add a new wrinkle: the publisher licenses the text to an AI developer and collects a fee. Is the book “in print”? Does the license count as exploitation? The short answer is that out-of-print clauses were written to answer a different question, and the clause language in your own contract decides the result. No court decision we could find resolves how an AI license interacts with a reversion trigger, so what follows describes how these clauses are built and where the open questions sit.
How Out-of-Print Clauses Traditionally Work
The Authors Guild’s guidance on out-of-print clauses describes the classic structure. A book was “in print” if it was available through normal retail channels in an English-language physical edition the publisher offered. When it stopped being available, the author could demand the rights back.
Two developments weakened that protection. Print-on-demand and ebooks let a publisher keep a title technically available forever without a print run or meaningful sales. If the contract defines “in print” as available in any format, including electronic or print-on-demand, a book that sells a handful of copies a year never goes out of print.
The fix that author organizations pushed, and that the Guild says major publishers accepted in response, is a threshold. A work is deemed out of print if royalties fall below a stated amount, often described in the range of $150 to $300 per year, across two consecutive royalty periods. The Guild recommends a royalty threshold over a sales-count threshold, because discounting can inflate unit sales while depressing what the author earns. Its advice for a contract that lacks such a clause is to insist on adding one.
A typical exercise sequence, as the Guild describes it, runs like this: a waiting period after publication, often two to three years, before the right applies; written notice from the author; a window for the publisher to respond, commonly around six months; a further period, often a year, for the publisher to put the book back in print; and reversion if the publisher does not. The Guild also favors reversion that happens automatically rather than only when the publisher confirms it. These figures describe common structures, not universal terms. Your contract may differ in every number.
Where an AI License Does and Does Not Fit
Consider the three places an AI license could interact with a typical clause.
The availability test. Most “in print” definitions look at whether an edition is offered to buyers: a physical edition, an ebook, sometimes a POD listing. A license that lets a developer ingest the text is not an edition offered for sale to readers. On the ordinary reading of a clause drafted around availability, an AI license does not keep a book in print. But “ordinary reading” is not a rule, and a clause that says the work is in print while “licensed” or “available” in any form, rather than “available for sale,” could be argued differently. Read the exact verb.
The royalty threshold. This is the harder question. Whether AI licensing income counts toward the threshold depends on what the clause counts. If the threshold is defined as royalties earned on sales of the work, AI license income is arguably outside it. If it is defined as total amounts credited to the author for the work from all sources, a licensing payment could lift a dormant title above the line and delay reversion. Publishers and authors can reasonably read this differently, and we found no authoritative source settling it. Your royalty statements show which line items your publisher treats as “royalties.”
The grant itself. Reversion only matters for rights that were granted in the first place. If your grant was a list of specific formats, AI training may never have been licensed to the publisher at all; our look at what publishers can license to AI companies walks through that. A publisher licensing a title it lacks the right to license is a separate problem from a reversion dispute.
Why the Question Has Money Attached
In the Bartz v. Anthropic piracy class settlement, the Authors Guild’s guidance reports payments of roughly $1.5 billion in total, about $3,000 per identified book, and notes that the award is typically split between author and publisher, while authors whose rights had already reverted can claim the full amount. That is the Guild’s account, and eligibility rules belong to the settlement administrator, not to this article. The broader point holds regardless of one settlement: what you control after reversion is different from what you share while a publisher still holds the rights.
Reversion is also not the only route. The Guild lists several triggers: an out-of-print clause, a publisher’s material breach, publisher insolvency, and statutory termination, which under the Copyright Act lets authors terminate grants in a window starting 35 years after publication. Each has its own mechanics.
Steps for an Author With a Dormant Title
Find the clause and read the definition. Locate the out-of-print provision and the definition of “in print.” Note whether POD or ebook availability counts, whether a threshold exists, and how it is measured.
Pull your statements. Compare royalties for the last several periods against any threshold, and check how licensing income is classified.
Ask in writing what has been licensed. Request a list of licenses granted for the title, including any AI-related license, its term, and whether it would survive a reversion. Contracts vary on that last point, and it is worth having answered before you send a demand.
Send the notice the clause requires. Follow the contract’s method and timing exactly. A notice that misses a formality gives the publisher an argument.
Do not assume silence means yes. If the publisher responds that the title remains “in print” because it is licensed, ask which clause language supports that, and have an attorney review the answer. An author’s society or a publishing attorney can tell you how the wording in your agreement has been read in practice.
The underlying principle is simple: reversion clauses turn on objective triggers, and the better those triggers are drafted, the less anyone needs to argue about novel licensing arrangements. If you are signing a new deal, define “in print” as actual availability for sale, set a royalty threshold, and state that licensing income for uses like AI training does not keep a title in print.
This article is editorial and informational, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.