#58 | ✨PLUS: Getty vs Stability trial starts | Cruz tweaks 10-year US state AI regulation ban | News orgs 'need to show more imagination on AI' | BFI report sets out roadmap for AI innovation
I would argue that the creator industry is fundamentally broken. The money rarely goes to those actually creating, it ends up with copyright holders, lawyers, investment funds, major studios, publishing houses, and similar entities. These extractive players now show up with talk of “ethics,” trying to convince creatives that AI will steal “their” art and must be opposed. In truth, they fear the erosion of their parasitic business models. AI isn’t a threat to creators, it’s rather a threat to their bosses and gatekeepers. For producers, AI could be a tool of liberation, enabling them to build systems that bypass exploitation and control. It’s a shift in power, and that’s why they resist it. Creative minds should take a forward-leaning stance. I explored this idea further in a recent essay:
Creatives must consciously assign their rights to someone else. Unless specifically stated otherwise in an employment agreement, writers, artists, musicians own copyright to their creations.
If you’re a creative, don’t sign agreements that grant someone else your copyright, unless you’re substantially compensated for the sale.
If you receive a salary and work for Disney or a pharmaceutical company, you may be required to sign a “work for hire” contract. You’re giving up your copyright in exchange for guaranteed income. You can always choose to be self-employed and keep your copyright, with the trade-off being insecurity re income.
I worked for a company where the employment agreement stated that the employer owned all my intellectual property, past and present, whether created on company time or off the clock. I refused to sign and they amended the agreement. That was a particularly stupid company.
I just shared Horatio Gutierrez’s post on LinkedIn and tagged him. That would be a massive win for creatives.
I would argue that the creator industry is fundamentally broken. The money rarely goes to those actually creating, it ends up with copyright holders, lawyers, investment funds, major studios, publishing houses, and similar entities. These extractive players now show up with talk of “ethics,” trying to convince creatives that AI will steal “their” art and must be opposed. In truth, they fear the erosion of their parasitic business models. AI isn’t a threat to creators, it’s rather a threat to their bosses and gatekeepers. For producers, AI could be a tool of liberation, enabling them to build systems that bypass exploitation and control. It’s a shift in power, and that’s why they resist it. Creative minds should take a forward-leaning stance. I explored this idea further in a recent essay:
Creatives must consciously assign their rights to someone else. Unless specifically stated otherwise in an employment agreement, writers, artists, musicians own copyright to their creations.
If you’re a creative, don’t sign agreements that grant someone else your copyright, unless you’re substantially compensated for the sale.
If you receive a salary and work for Disney or a pharmaceutical company, you may be required to sign a “work for hire” contract. You’re giving up your copyright in exchange for guaranteed income. You can always choose to be self-employed and keep your copyright, with the trade-off being insecurity re income.
I worked for a company where the employment agreement stated that the employer owned all my intellectual property, past and present, whether created on company time or off the clock. I refused to sign and they amended the agreement. That was a particularly stupid company.