There is no way to check what percentage of anyone's work was used in GenAI output. Structurally, it's impossible.
The people who make the AI cannot tell you what amount that any of the training data was given in the output in any given prompt.
Several of these are impossible.
Of course creators should get paid whn their creators are monetized by others, though. It needs to be solved. Generative AI is a technology that shouldn't exist in it's current form, and someone should drag it into court and make a scene.
It's a very clear layout. It appears like AI tightened writing. The problem is the structuralism behind brokering data for money are outside of US lines.
All the data conversion to $$ lies outside the power of the Americas. We would have to start demanding critical observance of our data as a copyright issue, that would be stolen for use by BRICS conversion and PRC GenAI training tables. As it stands, there is a gentlemans' agreement with Harvard Business heads to not observe your claim to fame, as it would be, in name, image and likeness. That's the 3K foot issue. There is a Hollywood brokerage clique who wants to cut out and keep cutting out recognition of Users as people with personal rights on these issues, because they are part of the problem. They traffic social platform data just like the other tech/media players. They're on the Harvard program.
What you actually need to enforce the will of the consumer, is a mass consent injunction backed by a very strong IP protectorate, issued by a "copyright troll" State, like Texas. Then... you need someone like Pam Bondi to enforce USPTO restrictions, actionable TODAY within US borders, on third party collection and data brokerages from front end collections and cookies. EU has 'cookie consent'.
You have to limit the data transfer to U.S. allies only to make this meaningful. You need new law to treat pii, current and past brokered identity data, as a personal product that includes you in the pricing agreements. The lawyers will will away any claim that you own your face. They cannot do that and then solicit you for broad based unfair billing on the front end. It can't be "censorship" and data slavery" at the same time.
If the platforms make money from the brokerages, there shall be a functionary trust or a fiduciary agent appointed by the courts. They would be there to enforce consent exchanges, monitor price actions, make sure data classifications are managed by the consumer. Think of it as an extension of the FTC and the FDIC at the U.S. Dept. of Treasury.
Involuntary servitude in Mr. Karps Eye of Souron (Palantir) gets punched in the cornea the moment you invoke citizenship online. So why can't we tell Chinese exchange partners, 3rd party data grubbers, to go to hell BEFORE they get the data? If we involve trade restrictions on American data, we have to produce a case with a federal Senate office, stating that 1) we are a U.S. citizen and 2) we want trade restrictions for BRICS nation state exchanges. The Senate goes to the U.S. Treasury Dept and substantiates an enforcement action based on nation-state rights to not use your Name, Image and Likeness for platformer commerce traffic.
Now, depending on the deals you already have with studios, you will likely need 2- 3 lawyers to fine tune a specific demand that deconflicts, say, Hollywood commitments with your personal living data. There is a distinction between professional commercial work and your family data.
Anything that's a one-way 'SUBMIT YOUR SLAVE' button is not going to do anything but displace intellectual property rights over data and speed the data as high-handed-international-waters-zero-human-rights- traffic to India or China as fast as possible to turn your pii (med records, bank information, IP transliteration) to currency conversion.
Don't f**k around, Joe. These pirates are really comfortable. They want you to think they're a mafia now. You cut them off, there's going to be a civil war of sorts martialed by people like Peter Thiel and Adam Karp who take their orders from China, Russia, India, Israel and this U.S. government. If you have to pick a side, pick yours.
I've had a few instances where an AI prompt gave me a few response options to choose from, and now I'm thinking I should have been compensated for my labor.
This isn’t just a policy suggestion- it’s an identity claim about what creative work means in a world where machines can simulate everything except authorship.
If we don’t define compensation as an intrinsic right, then ‘AI-augmented’ creativity becomes a system that rewards imitation and punishes the original thinker.
True creative agency isn’t about what AI can predict- it’s what AI can never replace: your internal conflict, your unique friction, the part of you that refuses to be simulated.
I have followed your career forever. You are doing what a real honest and authentic human person should be doing. For example, in Mysterious Skin you showed the damning effects on a child who is abused. The abused's lives are totally destroyed. I told the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that everyone who works with youth should be mandated to see the film. And you should have gotten the Academy Award for that performance. So keep up the work of humanizing a nation so in need of it.
I’d like to be paid by the letter in the form of a) unlimited groceries b) paying off my loans and putting a deposit down for my home c) a monthly stipend of ten grand deposited into my account for 30 years
This is slightly a different story but, I personally want to meet your joe journal content regarding these day's hot topic of Netflix buying WB. Big fan of yours since WP AI op-ed and become a subscriber since then! Cheers mate!
It seems we are in a new era of what we post online to be data mined for AI. We didn't really care before AI about FB, Instagram, etc. having access to what we post. Now it's crucial for us to safeguard our images, writing, creative content. How we do that is already too late for what's been posted for years now. Seems to me how we post currently is the crucial question.
yeah the thing about opt-in permissions is that they bury them in the settings inside menus that often have very poor descriptive names.
In addition to that, in most cases, the default setting is the already toggled on feature too.
Great article!
We have an information economy.
I give free data and expect free content.
There is no way to check what percentage of anyone's work was used in GenAI output. Structurally, it's impossible.
The people who make the AI cannot tell you what amount that any of the training data was given in the output in any given prompt.
Several of these are impossible.
Of course creators should get paid whn their creators are monetized by others, though. It needs to be solved. Generative AI is a technology that shouldn't exist in it's current form, and someone should drag it into court and make a scene.
It's a very clear layout. It appears like AI tightened writing. The problem is the structuralism behind brokering data for money are outside of US lines.
All the data conversion to $$ lies outside the power of the Americas. We would have to start demanding critical observance of our data as a copyright issue, that would be stolen for use by BRICS conversion and PRC GenAI training tables. As it stands, there is a gentlemans' agreement with Harvard Business heads to not observe your claim to fame, as it would be, in name, image and likeness. That's the 3K foot issue. There is a Hollywood brokerage clique who wants to cut out and keep cutting out recognition of Users as people with personal rights on these issues, because they are part of the problem. They traffic social platform data just like the other tech/media players. They're on the Harvard program.
What you actually need to enforce the will of the consumer, is a mass consent injunction backed by a very strong IP protectorate, issued by a "copyright troll" State, like Texas. Then... you need someone like Pam Bondi to enforce USPTO restrictions, actionable TODAY within US borders, on third party collection and data brokerages from front end collections and cookies. EU has 'cookie consent'.
You have to limit the data transfer to U.S. allies only to make this meaningful. You need new law to treat pii, current and past brokered identity data, as a personal product that includes you in the pricing agreements. The lawyers will will away any claim that you own your face. They cannot do that and then solicit you for broad based unfair billing on the front end. It can't be "censorship" and data slavery" at the same time.
If the platforms make money from the brokerages, there shall be a functionary trust or a fiduciary agent appointed by the courts. They would be there to enforce consent exchanges, monitor price actions, make sure data classifications are managed by the consumer. Think of it as an extension of the FTC and the FDIC at the U.S. Dept. of Treasury.
Involuntary servitude in Mr. Karps Eye of Souron (Palantir) gets punched in the cornea the moment you invoke citizenship online. So why can't we tell Chinese exchange partners, 3rd party data grubbers, to go to hell BEFORE they get the data? If we involve trade restrictions on American data, we have to produce a case with a federal Senate office, stating that 1) we are a U.S. citizen and 2) we want trade restrictions for BRICS nation state exchanges. The Senate goes to the U.S. Treasury Dept and substantiates an enforcement action based on nation-state rights to not use your Name, Image and Likeness for platformer commerce traffic.
Now, depending on the deals you already have with studios, you will likely need 2- 3 lawyers to fine tune a specific demand that deconflicts, say, Hollywood commitments with your personal living data. There is a distinction between professional commercial work and your family data.
Anything that's a one-way 'SUBMIT YOUR SLAVE' button is not going to do anything but displace intellectual property rights over data and speed the data as high-handed-international-waters-zero-human-rights- traffic to India or China as fast as possible to turn your pii (med records, bank information, IP transliteration) to currency conversion.
Don't f**k around, Joe. These pirates are really comfortable. They want you to think they're a mafia now. You cut them off, there's going to be a civil war of sorts martialed by people like Peter Thiel and Adam Karp who take their orders from China, Russia, India, Israel and this U.S. government. If you have to pick a side, pick yours.
https://youtu.be/GGOwiYC4AoU?si=eI2g2_-6sTMkwmD2
I've had a few instances where an AI prompt gave me a few response options to choose from, and now I'm thinking I should have been compensated for my labor.
A common story I keep hearing from creators:
A film, script, song, or performance is used—directly or indirectly—to train or inform an AI system. There’s no clear record of what was used.
- No visibility into how.
- No attribution.
-No compensation.
The real problem isn’t AI. It’s that machines can’t see authorship, authority, or usage boundaries on today’s web.
Humans rely on contracts and norms.
Machines rely on structure.
If we want AI to respect creative work at scale, the web itself has to make that respect legible to machines.
I’m building infrastructure designed to make authorship, authority, and usage boundaries legible to machines—at scale.
{
"internet": "humans",
"agentnet": "machines"
}
they are not forthcoming often
Incredible article 👏
Direct deposit or Zelle will be fine
This isn’t just a policy suggestion- it’s an identity claim about what creative work means in a world where machines can simulate everything except authorship.
If we don’t define compensation as an intrinsic right, then ‘AI-augmented’ creativity becomes a system that rewards imitation and punishes the original thinker.
True creative agency isn’t about what AI can predict- it’s what AI can never replace: your internal conflict, your unique friction, the part of you that refuses to be simulated.
-Double ID
I have followed your career forever. You are doing what a real honest and authentic human person should be doing. For example, in Mysterious Skin you showed the damning effects on a child who is abused. The abused's lives are totally destroyed. I told the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that everyone who works with youth should be mandated to see the film. And you should have gotten the Academy Award for that performance. So keep up the work of humanizing a nation so in need of it.
I’d like to be paid by the letter in the form of a) unlimited groceries b) paying off my loans and putting a deposit down for my home c) a monthly stipend of ten grand deposited into my account for 30 years
This is slightly a different story but, I personally want to meet your joe journal content regarding these day's hot topic of Netflix buying WB. Big fan of yours since WP AI op-ed and become a subscriber since then! Cheers mate!
It seems we are in a new era of what we post online to be data mined for AI. We didn't really care before AI about FB, Instagram, etc. having access to what we post. Now it's crucial for us to safeguard our images, writing, creative content. How we do that is already too late for what's been posted for years now. Seems to me how we post currently is the crucial question.
This is absolutely brilliant and well written and articulated. I agree any of this can be accomplished through conscious collective action and support