John Wiley & Sons, one of the world's largest academic publishers, abruptly ended its lobbying relationship with Access Partnership on June 30, 2026, just five days before re-registering with the firm. The move marks a notable pivot in how the publishing industry is engaging with policymakers on artificial intelligence and copyright issues, according to federal lobbying disclosures filed in September 2026.

What Was Wiley Lobbying About?

Between late 2024 and early 2025, Wiley spent $20,000 on lobbying activities through Access Partnership, with the work centered squarely on how artificial intelligence intersects with copyright and intellectual property rights. The publisher's disclosed lobbying priorities included:

• Artificial Intelligence Policy: Broader government actions, events, and trends related to AI development and deployment that could affect the company's business model.
• Copyright and Patent Protection: Advocacy around copyright, patent, and trademark enforcement as generative AI systems increasingly rely on training data sourced from published works.
• Science and Technology Issues: Government positions on how scientific research and scholarly publications should be treated in the context of AI training.

Spencer Smith, listed as the senior manager of trade and technology for Wiley, was identified as the primary lobbyist on the company's amended third-quarter 2024 filing.

Why Does This Timing Matter for AI Copyright?

Wiley's lobbying pivot comes just months after a major development in the AI copyright debate. In May 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a prepublication section of its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence report on generative AI training. That report stated that litigation outcomes cannot be prejudged and that some uses of copyrighted works to train generative AI may qualify as fair use, a legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission.

This finding was significant because it suggested the government was not taking an absolutist stance against AI companies using copyrighted material for training. For publishers like Wiley, which have been caught between protecting author rights and adapting to AI's rapid evolution, the Copyright Office's measured approach may have shifted the calculus on how aggressively to lobby on the issue.

The timing of Wiley's lobbying termination and re-registration suggests the publisher may be recalibrating its strategy. Rather than maintaining continuous advocacy through a single firm, the company may be testing different approaches or consolidating its efforts internally as the regulatory landscape becomes clearer.

How Are Publishers Navigating AI Copyright Policy?

Wiley's approach reflects a broader challenge facing academic and trade publishers in 2026. These companies sit at the intersection of three competing interests: protecting the intellectual property rights of authors and creators, adapting to AI technologies that could enhance their business models, and engaging with governments that are still developing coherent AI policy frameworks.

• Litigation vs. Lobbying: While some publishers have pursued copyright lawsuits against AI companies, others like Wiley have invested in direct government advocacy to shape policy before courts settle the legal questions.
• Fair Use Uncertainty: The Copyright Office's acknowledgment that some AI training may qualify as fair use leaves publishers uncertain about which uses they can legally challenge and which they must accept.
• International Variation: Different countries are taking divergent approaches to AI copyright, forcing publishers to maintain separate lobbying and legal strategies across jurisdictions.

Access Partnership, the firm Wiley worked with, describes itself as helping organizations use artificial intelligence responsibly and at scale through strategy, architecture, and governance services. The firm's focus on responsible AI adoption suggests Wiley may have been seeking guidance on how to position itself as a constructive player in AI policy rather than simply as a rights-holder fighting against technology companies.

The publisher's earlier lobbying efforts, documented in 2019 filings with a different firm called Crowell Global Advisors, focused on the Scientific Integrity Act and broader issues around scholarly publications and open science. This suggests Wiley has been gradually shifting its policy priorities from traditional publishing concerns toward the emerging intersection of AI, copyright, and scientific communication.

As of September 2026, the full implications of Wiley's lobbying restructuring remain unclear. The company's decision to re-register with Access Partnership just five days after terminating the relationship suggests the shift may be procedural rather than strategic. However, the zero dollars in reported lobbying activity for the second quarter of 2026 indicates the publisher may be taking a more cautious approach to public advocacy on AI copyright issues while the regulatory and legal landscape continues to evolve.