Greetings from 小蓝视频 Florida, where I’m about to lead a day-long, private AI workshop—great weather, no time to enjoy it.
In the news: Last week, Google and OpenAI asked the White House for permission to train AI on copyrighted content, arguing that restrictive laws will cripple U.S. innovation while China advances unchecked. Their case: AI doesn’t copy; it learns patterns and creates something new. That’s fair use, they claim — the same principle that powers search engines and chatbots.
Hollywood disagrees. Yesterday, 400+ industry leaders — including Ron Howard, Cate Blanchett, Paul McCartney — sent a letter warning that this would open the floodgates to unlicensed use of scripts, music and books. You can read the full text of the referenced letters .
What’s at Stake?
Unrestricted AI training could accelerate breakthroughs in medicine, automation and more, but if creators aren’t compensated, what’s their incentive to keep creating? Given Big Tech's market caps, the idea that they can’t afford to pay creatives is absurd.
If AI can generate a mash-up like “a painting of a farmhouse mixing the styles of Yayoi Kusama and Tetsuya Nomura” or “music for a chase scene that sounds like Hans Zimmer’s Pirates score,” shouldn’t the referenced artists get paid?
We need a licensing model, a performing rights society for AI, or an opt-in dataset. This isn’t an either-or—we can win the AI race and fairly compensate creators. In practice, we have to.
As always your thoughts and comments are both welcome and encouraged. Just reply to this email. -s
Shelly Palmer is the Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and CEO of The Palmer Group, a consulting practice that helps Fortune 500 companies with technology, media and marketing. Named he covers tech and business for , is a regular commentator on CNN and writes a popular . He's a , and the creator of the popular, free online course, . Follow or visit .
