Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstall
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
On October 22, 2024, more than 10,500 creators and creative-industry organizations were reported to have signed a statement opposing unlicensed use of creative works to train generative-AI systems. The statement argues that such use threatens creators’ livelihoods and should not be permitted. It is an advocacy position, not a law or judgment deciding whether any particular training use is lawful.
What the open letter said
The statement’s central message was brief: “The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.” Publishers’ Licensing Services reproduced this wording.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →
The statement does not specify one licensing model, name a defendant, or resolve the legality of particular AI training uses. Its demand should be understood as the signatories’ policy position, not a court’s conclusion.
Who signed it?
The reported launch figure was more than 10,500 signatories. They included individuals and organizations across creative sectors—not only visual artists. Publishers’ Licensing Services names Sir Kazuo Ishiguro, James Patterson, and Max Richter among individual signatories, and the Association of Photographers, UK Music, and Creators Rights Alliance among organizations. The Washington Post also reported Thom Yorke and Julianne Moore as signatories.
#1 Best Overall
The figure describes the launch period and includes organizations as well as individuals. The research does not verify a current cumulative total, so it should not be presented as one.
Who organized the statement?
Publishers’ Licensing Services identifies Ed Newton-Rex as the organizer. It reports that he resigned from Stability AI in 2023 over concerns about the use of copyright-protected works without permission and later established Fairly Trained, a nonprofit that certifies generative-AI companies’ training-data practices. The Washington Post also reported on Newton-Rex and the campaign.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Why are creators concerned?
The statement describes unlicensed training as a threat to creators’ livelihoods. Publishers’ Licensing Services says the coalition raised concerns about use of content without transparency, permission, and fair compensation. These are the coalition’s arguments; the cited reporting does not establish that every AI system used a particular creator’s work or that all creators experienced the same economic effect.
The wider dispute involves training data, copyright arguments, litigation, and policy debates. The Washington Post reported that technology companies have argued fair use, while rights holders have challenged data uses through litigation and regulatory advocacy. It also described publishers reaching agreements with AI developers for data access in exchange for payment or other benefits. Licensing is one response in the debate, not a resolution of all legal questions.
What licensing activity is relevant?
Publishers’ Licensing Services reports that it is participating in an opt-in text-and-data-mining licence developed with the Copyright Licensing Agency and its other members. It also reported a consultation on a CLA proposal to license published content for workplace AI, with a later consultation planned on licensing generative-AI model training. These are reported initiatives; they do not establish a licence covering every work, country, or model, or that a licence is available for every use.
PLS chief executive Tom West said the development of AI “must not be to the detriment of human creativity and the creative industries.” He also described work with the Copyright Licensing Agency and its fellow members to develop voluntary collective licensing solutions. Those are West’s views and descriptions of the work.
Rank #3
How do licensing and opt-out approaches differ?
The statement calls for unlicensed training not to be permitted. Licensing initiatives described by PLS are one possible response. The dossier identifies several issues readers should consider when comparing approaches, but does not provide a complete comparison of current systems.
| Question | What to check |
|---|---|
| Permission | Does the approach require prior permission, or allow a rights holder to opt out? |
| Coverage | Which specific works and rights are covered? |
| Administration | Is licensing handled by individual rights holders or collectively? |
| Transparency and compensation | What information is provided about training data, and what payment or permitted uses apply? |
| Jurisdiction | Where does the arrangement apply? |
The sources establish that these are relevant issues in the wider debate, not the terms of a single comprehensive licensing system.
What the statement does—and does not—establish
The statement makes a policy demand concerning unlicensed use of creative works for generative-AI training. It does not itself establish that every training use is unlawful, determine whether a particular work was used, or demonstrate a uniform economic effect on creators. Those questions depend on the facts and applicable legal and licensing arrangements.
The Washington Post reported that technology companies have argued fair use and that rights holders have pursued litigation and regulatory advocacy. Publishers’ agreements with AI developers, as reported by the newspaper, illustrate that some parties have pursued data-access arrangements. None of this means the statement settled the broader dispute.
Recommended Free Tools
FAQ
How many people signed the AI training open letter?
More than 10,500 signatories were reported at launch on October 22, 2024. The total included organizations as well as individuals, and the dossier does not verify a current cumulative count.
What did the statement ask for?
It said that unlicensed use of creative works to train generative AI is a threat to creators’ livelihoods and must not be permitted.
Did the letter make AI training illegal?
No. It is an advocacy statement, not a law or judgment determining the legality of any particular training use.
Were the signatories only visual artists?
No. The reported signatories included creators and organizations across several creative sectors, including writing, music, photography, and acting.
Is there a current total of signatories?
The research available for this article verifies the launch-period figure, not a current cumulative total.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
