Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond

Amruta Mahuli; Asia J. Biega; Jun Zhao; Lin Kyi; M. Six Silberman; Reuben Binns

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Consent, credit, and compensation are not enough to protect creative workers from generative AI, a 20-interview study argues.

desk verdict A careful interview study that adds real nuance to the 3 Cs debate; its policy reach exceeds its 20-participant sample, but that is fixable framing, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11457 v1 pith:GA5YOJLM submitted 2025-01-20 cs.HC

Lin Kyi , Amruta Mahuli , M. Six Silberman , Reuben Binns , Jun Zhao , Asia J. Biega This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HC

keywords AIgovernancegenerativecreativeworkersconsentcreditcompensationqualitativeinterviewslaborrights

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the popular "3 Cs" remedy for harms to creative workers from generative AI—obtaining consent before training on their work, giving credit, and paying compensation—is far less straightforward than advocates assume. Drawing on 20 interviews with visual artists, designers, writers, and programmers, it finds that consent is often meaningless under employer power imbalances, that credit can expose workers to reputational harm for outputs they do not control, and that compensation does not resolve workers' objections to training on personal, attachment-laden projects. It also documents a gap between the governance workers say they want and what companies, publishers, platforms, and governments currently provide. The authors conclude that governance must be ongoing rather than one-time, collective rather than purely individual, and extended to training-data pipelines, not just model outputs.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the "3 Cs" framework (consent, credit, and compensation), a term coined in 2017 for protecting Indigenous cultural property and since adopted as a rallying cry in generative AI disputes. The paper treats it not as a fixed standard but as a hypothesis to be tested against workers' accounts, and the test produces a set of specification conditions: consent must be informed, genuinely voluntary, and renegotiated over time; credit must account for anonymity preferences and liability concerns; compensation must be contextualized by employment status and personal attachment. The interview instrument, with its hypothetical scenarios about training models on work before and after leaving an employer, is the mechanism that surfaces these conditions.

What would settle it

A representative, preregistered survey of several hundred creative workers across visual art, writing, and programming that found a large majority would accept one-time consent, mandatory attribution, and standardized compensation as adequate would directly contradict the paper's core claim. So would observational evidence that companies already offering ongoing re-consent and credit opt-outs see no improvement in worker trust or retention.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that the 3 Cs framework—consent, credit, and compensation—does not function as a simple protective triad in creative work. Almost all interviewees wanted to be asked for consent, but employees often felt they could not refuse because their company owns their work and holds power over their livelihoods; freelancers similarly feared economic retaliation. Some workers explicitly did not want credit, either because they saw their employer as the rightful author, because they were not well-known enough for attribution to matter, or because being named would tie them to AI-generated outputs they might find offensive or harmful. All wanted compensation, but many distinguished between work-for-hire output, which they were willing to see trained on, and personal projects, where money did not repair the sense of violation. The paper reads these patterns as evidence that consent must be re-asked as technology develops and working conditions change, credit must be optional and informed by reputational risk, and compensation must be paired with ongoing consent and ownership structures.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusions rest on 20 interviews recruited through the researchers' own networks and an online freelancing platform, so the findings stand or fall with whether that small, self-selected, mostly Global North group represents creative workers in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, any governance regime built on a single up-front consent checkbox will fail a substantial share of creative workers, because consent loses meaning under employment power asymmetries and because technology changes over time.
Mandatory credit requirements would backfire for workers who want to dissociate from model outputs; credit should be an option with default anonymity protections built in.
Compensation schemes that ignore the attachment distinction between work and personal projects will leave the strongest objections unresolved.
Regulators should extend oversight from AI outputs to the data pipelines and employment and contractual settings in which training data is collected, not just to the final system.
Companies, publishers, and platforms currently lack AI governance strategies; the paper's recommendations imply a proactive, worker-consultative standard rather than reactive banning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the authors leave implicit is that individual notice-and-choice consent mechanisms, as under data-protection law, are structurally ill-suited to this setting; collective consent through works councils or unions would be a more faithful implementation of their findings.
The age and experience profile of the sample (average 28.6 years, 5.23 years of experience) suggests the paper may understate the strength of objections among older, more established workers whose reputational capital and career investment are larger.
A testable corollary is that workers who are offered an anonymity-preserving credit option plus ongoing re-consent will report higher trust in an AI training arrangement than workers offered one-time credit and compensation; this could be examined in a vignette experiment.
The attachment distinction could be operationalized into policy by requiring separate consent tracks for commissioned versus personally initiated work, though the authors do not develop that mechanism.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

You should know this is a careful, well-scoped qualitative study, and its main result is more interesting than the title suggests. The paper gives creative workers' own words to show that the '3 Cs'—consent, credit, compensation—are not the simple fixes they often appear to be in advocacy. Some workers don't want credit because they don't want to be associated with model output; consent decisions shift as people anticipate future capabilities; work output and personal projects elicit different feelings. Those specifics are new and worth having.

The method is solid for what it is: 20 semi-structured interviews, protocol in the appendix, codebook referenced, two-author thematic analysis, and a limitations section that names self-selection and snowball recruitment. The quotes are well chosen and the findings are mostly reported as participant views, not as population estimates.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The biggest is the gap between the sample and the generalizing language. The 20 participants average 28.6 years, skew Global North and network-recruited, and the paper's recommendations in Section 5.5 are written for creative workers at large. When the paper says 'most participants said their employer has no AI governance strategy,' that is a statement about 20 people's knowledge, not a verified fact about the industry. The authors concede some of this in 5.6 but still move freely to 'creative workers' in the Discussion. That's a framing fix, not a fatal flaw.

A smaller but real issue: the three pilot participants who helped shape the interview questions were re-invited into the official sample (P6, P7, P11) without the paper noting this as a potential bias. Their input likely steered the protocol toward their own concerns, which could make the 'nuanced' findings partly an artifact of question design. I'd want that acknowledged, though the effect is probably minor given the small number.

I don't share the stress-test's concern that this is load-bearing. The central contribution—that the 3 Cs are more complicated than the slogan suggests—would survive even with a different sample, because it is about documenting previously unreported reasoning, not about estimating population frequencies. The paper would be stronger if it consistently said 'our participants' instead of 'creative workers,' but the underlying finding stands.

This paper is for people working on AI governance, HCI, and labor policy. It gives them a useful empirical baseline and a set of testable hypotheses. It deserves a serious referee. I'd engage with it, and I'd recommend it go to peer review with a request for tighter framing around generalizability.

Best.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports findings from 20 semi-structured interviews with creative professionals in visual art/design, writing, and programming, conducted to understand their perspectives on generative AI governance. The authors investigate whether the '3 Cs' framework (consent, credit, compensation) adequately addresses creative workers' concerns, document a perceived gap between existing governance structures and what workers want, and offer policy and practice recommendations. The central claims are that the 3 Cs are more nuanced than current discourse suggests—e.g., consent is constrained by employment power asymmetries, credit can be unwanted due to reputational risk, and compensation does not resolve attachment-based objections—and that current company, platform, and governmental governance is insufficient. The paper includes a description of the interview protocol, a codebook referenced in supplementary materials, and a candid limitations section.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution to HCI and AI governance by grounding the popular '3 Cs' discourse in worker perspectives and by articulating concrete governance gaps. The study is well-designed for its qualitative scope: the semi-structured protocol is included, the two-author iterative thematic analysis is documented with 121 codes and 13 themes, and the authors are transparent about sample limitations. The nuanced findings—particularly that credit can harm workers and that consent must be ongoing and collective—are potentially actionable for companies and regulators. However, the strength of these contributions is bounded by the sample's narrowness (20 participants, mostly young, Global North, network-recruited) and by one specific methodological choice involving pilot participants, which I detail below.

major comments (3)

[§3.1] The pilot-participant contamination issue is load-bearing because it directly affects the validity of the study's main qualitative findings.
[§5.6 and §5.5] The overgeneralization concern is central because the paper's second and third contributions are framed as general claims about creative workers and recommended governance structures.
[§4.2.1] The reliance on participant awareness is a legitimate limitation that should be disclosed in the Results or Discussion, not only in the general limitations section.

minor comments (5)

[Title/Abstract] There is a typo in the title and abstract: 'Cred it' should be 'Credit'.
[§2.2, Reference [40]] Reference [40] for the IEEE AIS initiative appears to have an incorrect URL; it points to a DeepMind page rather than the intended IEEE page. Please verify and correct the reference.
[Table 1] Participant P4 is listed as 'Trading associate' with 'Under 10' employees—it is unclear how this role fits the creative domains of art/design, writing, or programming described in the paper. Please clarify the participant's creative role or exclude if it is not within the stated inclusion criteria.
[Appendix A] In the interview script, 'I will be conducing an interview' should be 'I will be conducting an interview.'
[§5.5] The sentence 'cf. e.g. Art. 7(3) GDPR, Sentence 2' is awkward because Article 7(3) GDPR does not contain a named 'Sentence 2.' Consider rephrasing to 'cf. the second sentence of Art. 7(3) GDPR.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Empirical interview study with no derivation-chain circularity; minor evidentiary circularity from pilot participants co-designing the protocol and then being included in the sample.

other [Section 3.1 (Designing Interviews with Stakeholder Input); Section 4 quotes from P6, P7, and P11]
"Our pilot participants were informed that their insights would be used to form and adjust our interview questions, and not used in reporting results. ... All three pilot participants were invited again to participate in our study, which they all took part in. We recruited them again because our preliminary interview questions significantly changed based on their feedback, ensuring we would hear new insights from pilot participants during the official interviews."

The three pilot participants (P6, P7, P11) helped adjust the interview protocol from their own concerns. They were then re-interviewed as official participants, and their quotes appear throughout Section 4 as evidence. For these participants, the reported 'insights' are not independent of the instrument: their later answers were elicited by questions they had helped shape, making part of the qualitative evidence endogenous to the study's design. This is a modest evidentiary circularity, not a full derivation-chain reduction; the paper's central claims do not rest on these three alone, and the procedure is disclosed in Section 3.1 though not in the Limitations section.

full rationale

The paper is an interview-based qualitative study and contains no equations, derived quantities, or fitted parameters; the main circularity failure modes (self-definitional derivations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, ansatz smuggling via citation, renaming known results) do not apply. The central claims, namely that the 3 Cs are 'not as straightforward' and that a governance gap exists, are empirical summaries of 20 semi-structured interviews, not restatements of the 3 Cs framework. The one genuine circularity signal is the pilot-participant re-invitation in Section 3.1: the same people who helped redesign the interview questions were then included in the reported sample, making their responses partly an artifact of their own design input. This is acknowledged in Section 3.1 but omitted from Section 5.6, and it affects only 3 of 20 participants. Concerns about the sample's age, Global North skew, snowball recruitment, and self-selection (Section 5.6) are external-validity risks, not circularity, because they do not make the findings equivalent to their inputs by construction. The only self-citation ([47], used for data-value perceptions in Section 5.5) is peripheral and not load-bearing. Score 1 reflects one minor, disclosed methodological circularity with an otherwise self-contained empirical derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative empirical study, so the ledger contains no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are methodological and sampling-related: the validity of thematic analysis at 20 interviews, the accuracy of self-reports about employer governance policies, the adequacy of a convenience sample for general recommendations, and the prior framing of the 3 Cs as the lens to test. None of these is an unreasonable assumption for the genre, but each bounds what the paper can claim.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Thematic analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews produces reliable, saturation-level insights for the claims made.
The paper assumes saturation is reached at 20 interviews, citing Hennink and Kaiser [37] for a 9 to 17 interview norm, and that iterative two-author coding is a valid basis for the themes reported. Invoked in Section 3.4.
domain assumption Participants' self-reports accurately reflect their workplace AI governance situations and views.
Findings such as 'most participants said the company, publisher, or freelance platform they work with currently has no AI governance strategy' (Section 4.2.1) depend on interviewees having accurate knowledge of their employers' policies, which may be incomplete.
domain assumption The 3 Cs framework is the appropriate analytical lens for framing AI training governance questions.
The study is built around the 3 Cs framework from prior literature [43, 54]; the paper tests it rather than derives it, so the framework's adequacy is assumed at the outset. Invoked throughout Sections 2.2 and 4.1.
domain assumption The sample, despite convenience recruitment, supports the paper's policy recommendations.
Snowball sampling from the authors' networks plus Fiverr recruitment, with participants averaging 28.6 years old and mostly in the Global North, is assumed to be sufficient to ground the recommendations in Section 5.5. The authors partially concede this in Section 5.6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GA5YOJLM

@misc{pith2026250111457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GA5YOJLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11457}
}

read the original abstract

Since the emergence of generative AI, creative workers have spoken up about the career-based harms they have experienced arising from this new technology. A common theme in these accounts of harm is that generative AI models are trained on workers' creative output without their consent and without giving credit or compensation to the original creators. This paper reports findings from 20 interviews with creative workers in three domains: visual art and design, writing, and programming. We investigate the gaps between current AI governance strategies, what creative workers want out of generative AI governance, and the nuanced role of creative workers' consent, compensation and credit for training AI models on their work. Finally, we make recommendations for how generative AI can be governed and how operators of generative AI systems might more ethically train models on creative output in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Signals of Provenance: Practices & Challenges of Navigating Indicators in AI-Generated Media for Sighted and Blind Individuals
cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Both sighted and blind/low-vision users frequently overlook platform AI labels and rely on titles, comments, and other content cues, with blind users further hindered by inaccessible label design.
Fanfiction in the Age of AI: Community Perspectives on Creativity, Authenticity and Adoption
cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A survey of 157 fanfiction community members shows strong attachment to human-centered creativity, widespread demand for AI transparency, and a spectrum of attitudes from cautious acceptance to active rejection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Adobe. 2024. Adobe Fireﬂy vs. DALL·E 3: Express your vision with the right AI art generator for you. https://www.adobe.com/products/ﬁreﬂy/discover/ﬁreﬂy-vs-dalle.html

2024
[2]

Open AI. 2024. How ChatGPT and our language models are dev eloped. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7842364-how-cha tgpt-and-our-language-models-are-developed

arXiv 2024
[3]

Davey Alba and Emily Chang. 2024. YouTube Says Ope- nAI Training Sora With Its Videos Would Break Rules. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-04/ youtube-says-openai-training-sora-with-its-

2024
[4]

Bobby Allyn. 2023. ’New York Times’ sues ChatGPT creator OpenAI, Microsoft, for copyright infringement. https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1221821750/new-york-times-sues-chatgpt-openai-microsoft-for-copyright- [Online; accessed 07-March-2024]

2023
[5]

Sarah Andersen, Ors v Stability AI, and Ors. 2023. https://ﬁngfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmogjdxvr/IP%20AI%20COPYRIGHT%20complaint.pdf

2023
[6]

Alexis T Baria and Keith Cross. 2021. The brain is a comput er is a brain: neu- roscience’s internal debate and the social signiﬁcance of t he Computational Metaphor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14042 (2021)

arXiv 2021
[7]

Allie Blaising and Laura Dabbish. 2022. Managing the tra nsition to online free- lance platforms: Self-directed socialization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

2022
[8]

Stack Overﬂow Blog. 2024. Is AI making your code worse? https://stackoverﬂow.blog/2024/03/22/is-ai-making-y our-code-worse

2024

Show all 94 references

[9]

Frank Bodendorf and Jörg Franke. 2024. What is the busine ss value of your data? A multi-perspective empirical study on monetary valuation factors and methods for data governance. Data & Knowledge Engineering 149 (2024), 102242

2024
[10]

Josiah D Boucher, Gillian Smith, and Yunus Doğan Tellie l. 2024. Is Resistance Futile?: Early Career Game Developers, Generat ive AI, and Ethical Skepticism. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Honolulu</city>, CHI ’2...

2024
[11]

Anu Bradford. 2024. The False Choice Between Digital Re gulation and Innova- tion. Northwestern University Law Review 118, 2 (2024)

2024
[12]

James Butcher and Irakli Beridze. 2019. What is the stat e of artiﬁcial intelligence governance globally? The RUSI Journal 164, 5-6 (2019), 88–96

2019
[13]

Shreya Chowdhary, Anna Kawakami, Mary L Gray, Jina Suh, Alexandra Olteanu, and Koustuv Saha. 2023. Can workers meaningfully consent to workplace well- being technologies?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency. 569–582

2023
[14]

Peter Cihon, Matthijs M Maas, and Luke Kemp. 2020. Shoul d artiﬁcial intelli- gence governance be centralised? Design lessons from histo ry. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 228–234

2020
[15]

Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic ana lysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

2017
[16]

European Commission. 2024. AI Act. https://digital-s trategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

2024
[17]

INC Concord Music Group and Ors v Anthropic PBC. 2023. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.96652/gov.uscourts.tnmd.96652.1.0.pdf

2023
[18]

US Constitution. [n. d.]. Art. I, § 8(8). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/ALDE_00013060/
[19]

Thomas F Cotter. 1997. Pragmatism, economics, and the d roit moral. NCL Rev. 76 (1997), 1

1997
[20]

Diane Coyle and Annabel Manley. 2024. What is the value o f data? A review of empirical methods. Journal of Economic Surveys 38, 4 (2024), 1317–1337

2024
[21]

DeepMind. 2017. Why we launched DeepMind Ethics and Soc iety. https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/why-we-launch ed-deepmind-ethics-society/

2017
[22]

Ozge Demirci, Jonas Hannane, and Xinrong Zhu. 2023. Who Is AI Replacing? The Impact of Genera-tive AI on Online Freelancing Platform s. (2023)

2023
[23]

Cory Doctorow. 2023. The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation . Verso Books

2023
[24]

CVL Economics. 2024. Future Unscripted: The Impact of G en- erative Artiﬁcial Intelligence on Entertainment Industry Jobs. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce331b47a39b9000198ﬀfa/t/65bacda1c217fc5971cec735/1706741922128/Future+Unscripted+-+The+Impact+of+Generative+Artiﬁ...

2024
[25]

Beth Elderkin. 2024. GDC 2024 State Of The Game In- dustry: Devs Discuss Layoﬀs, Generative AI, And More. https://gdconf.com/news/gdc-2024-state-game-industr y-devs-discuss-layoﬀs-generative-ai-and-more

2024
[26]

Ziv Epstein, Sydney Levine, David G Rand, and Iyad Rahwa n. 2020. Who gets credit for AI-generated art? Iscience 23, 9 (2020)

2020
[27]

European Commission. 2018. 2018 Reform of EU data protection rules. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-politica l/ﬁles/data-protection-factsheet-changes_en.pdf

2018
[28]

Edward Felten, Manav Raj, and Robert Seamans. 2021. Occ upational, industry, and geographic exposure to artiﬁcial intelligence: A novel dataset and its poten- tial uses. Strategic Management Journal 42, 12 (2021), 2195–2217

2021
[29]

Catherine L. Fisk. 2006. Credit Where It’s Due: The Law a nd Norms of Attribu- tion. Georgetown Law Journal (2006)

2006
[30]

Mike Fleckenstein, Ali Obaidi, and Nektaria Tryfona. 2 023. Data Valuation: Use Cases, Desiderata, and Approaches. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Data Econ- omy Workshop. 48–52
[31]

Center for Strategic and International Studies. 2023. AI Regulation is Coming- What is the Likely Outcome? https://www.csis.org/blogs/strategic-technologies-b log/ai-regulation-coming-what-likely-outcome

2023
[32]

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Art istic Works. 1886. Art. 6bis
[33]

INC Getty Images (US), INC v Stability AI. 2023. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/de laware/dedce/1:2023cv00135/81407/1/0.pdf?ts=1682222407

2023
[34]

Jiyeon Han, Eunseo Yang, and Uran Oh. 2024. Understandi ng the Use of AI- Based Audio Generation Models by End-Users. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7

2024
[35]

Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and RAY LC. 2024. Wh en Teams Embrace AI: Human Collaboration Strategies in Genera tive Prompt- ing in a Creative Design Task. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Honolulu</city>, <s...

2024
[36]

Melissa Heikkilä. 2022. This artist is dominating AI-g enerated art. And he’s not happy about it. MIT Technology Review 125, 6 (2022), 9–10

2022
[37]

Monique Hennink and Bonnie N Kaiser. 2022. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tes ts. Social science & medicine 292 (2022), 114523

2022
[38]

Dennis Hocevar. 1979. The Development of the Creative B ehavior Inventory (CBI). (1979)

1979
[39]

IBM. 2018. AI Fairness 360. https://aif360.res.ibm.c om/

2018
[40]

IEEE. 2017. Autonomous and Intelligent Syste,s (AIS). https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/why-we-launch ed-deepmind-ethics-society/

2017
[41]

Jane Im, Jill Dimond, Melody Berton, Una Lee, Katherine Mustelier, Mark S Ack- erman, and Eric Gilbert. 2021. Yes: Aﬃrmative consent as a th eoretical frame- work for understanding and imagining social platforms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in co...

2021
[42]

Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. De signing participatory ai: Creative professionals’ worries and expectations abou t generative ai. In Ex- tended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems. 1–8

2023
[43]

Cultural Intellectual Property Rights Initiative. 20 17. Con- sent Credit Compensation: The Legal Literacy Campaign. https://www.culturalintellectualproperty.com/the-3cs
[44]

Harry H Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan , Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Geb ru. 2023. AI Art and its Impact on Artists. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 363–374

2023
[45]

Zhengyuan Jiang, Jinghuai Zhang, and Neil Zhenqiang Go ng. 2023. Evading watermark based detection of AI-generated content. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1168–1181

2023
[46]

Will Knight. 2022. Elon Musk Has Fired Twitter’s ‘Ethic al AI’ Team. https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-ethical-ai-team /

2022
[47]

It doesn’t tell me anything about how my d ata is used

Lin Kyi, Abraham Mhaidli, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, F ranziska Roesner, and Asia J Biega. 2024. “It doesn’t tell me anything about how my d ata is used”: User Perceptions of Data Collection Purposes. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

2024
[48]

Marshall A. Leaﬀer. 2019. Understanding Copyright Law (7th edition) . Carolina Academic Press

2019
[49]

Katherine Lee, A Feder Cooper, and James Grimmelmann. 2 023. Talkin”Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chai n. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08133 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[50]

Paul Lehrman and INC Linnea Sage v LOVO. 2024. https://ﬁngfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/dwvkzgknepm/AI%20VOICEOVER%20LA WSUIT%20complaint.pdf

2024
[51]

Jie Li, Hancheng Cao, Laura Lin, Youyang Hou, Ruihao Zhu , and Abdallah El Ali
[52]

Zhuoyan Li, Chen Liang, Jing Peng, and Ming Yin. 2024. Th e Value, Beneﬁts, and Concerns of Generative AI-Powered Assistance in Writin g. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–25

2024
[53]

John Locke. 1690. In Second Treatise of government . Princeton University Press, Chapter Property
[54]

James Love. 2023. We Need Smart Intel- lectual Property Laws for Artiﬁcial Intelligence. https://www.scientiﬁcamerican.com/article/we-need-s mart-intellectual-property-laws-for-artiﬁcial-

2023
[55]

Sasha Luccioni, Yacine Jernite, Derek Thomas, Emily Wi tko, Ezi Ozoani, Josef Fukano, Vaibhav Srivastav, Brigitte Tousignant, and Margaret Mitchell
[56]

Emmanuel Macron, Mia Mottley, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva , Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel, Olaf Scholz, Fumio Kishida, William Ruto, M acky Sall, Cyril Ramaphosa, et al. 2023. A green transition that leaves no one behind’: world leaders release open letter. The Guardian 20 (2023)

2023
[57]

Available a t https://huggingface.co/blog/watermarking

AI Watermaking 101: Tools and Techniques. Available a t https://huggingface.co/blog/watermarking
[58]

Mariana Mazzucato. 2021. Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capi- talism. Penguin UK

2021
[59]

Ltd Main Sequence, LLC ORS v Dudesy, and ORS. 2024. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24377081/carlin-lawsuit.pdf

2024
[60]

Lisa Messeri and MJ Crockett. 2024. Artiﬁcial intellig ence and illusions of un- derstanding in scientiﬁc research. Nature 627, 8002 (2024), 49–58

2024
[61]

Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2 019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms an d guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

2019
[62]

Rudolf Monta. 1958. The Concept of Copyright Versus the Droit d’Auteur. S. Cal. L. Rev. 32 (1958), 177

1958
[63]

Martin Miernicki and Irene Ng. 2021. Artiﬁcial intelli gence and moral rights. Ai & Society 36, 1 (2021), 319–329

2021
[64]

OECD. 2021. Enterprises by business size. https://data.oecd.org/entrepreneur/enterprises-by-b usiness-size.htm

2021
[65]

Adam Mossoﬀ. 2002. Locke’s Labor Lost. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable (2002). Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Cred it, Compensation, and Beyond CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Y okohama, Japan

2002
[66]

Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases. 1996. Recital 28

1996
[67]

The International Association of Privacy Profession- als. 2024. Global AI Law and Policy Tracker. https://iapp.org/resources/article/global-ai-legisl ation-tracker/

2024
[68]

Karla Orlitz. 2023. Why AI Models are not inspired like h umans. https://www.kortizblog.com/blog/why-ai-models-are-n ot-inspired-like-humans

2023
[69]

Dan O’Neill, Hervé Corvellec, et al. 2018. The EU needs a stability and wellbeing pact, not more growth. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/21/a-green-transition-that-leaves-no-one-behind-world -leaders-release-open-letter. (2018)

2018
[70]

Kate Raworth. 2018. Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing

2018
[71]

Srishti Palani and Gonzalo Ramos. 2024. Evolving Roles and Workﬂows of Cre- ative Practitioners in the Age of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 16th Con- ference on Creativity & Cognition . 170–184

2024
[72]

Adi Robertson. 2024. X’s new AI image generator will mak e any- thing from Taylor Swift in lingerie to Kamala Harris with a gu n. https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220173/xai-grok-image-generator-misinformation-oﬀensive-imges

2024
[73]

Cyrill P Rigamonti. 2006. Deconstructing moral rights . Harv. Int’l LJ 47 (2006), 353

2006
[74]

Shawn Shan, Wenxin Ding, Josephine Passananti, Stanle y Wu, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y Zhao. 2024. Nightshade: Prompt-Speciﬁc Poisoning Attacks on Text- to-Image Generative Models. In 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE Computer Society, 212–212

2024
[75]

Shawn Shan, Jenna Cryan, Emily Wenger, Haitao Zheng, Ra na Hanocka, and Ben Y Zhao. 2023. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimic ry by {Text-to- Image} models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23). 2187– 2204

2023
[76]

Munindar P Singh. 2022. Consent as a foundation for resp onsible autonomy. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligenc e, Vol. 36. 12301– 12306

2022
[77]

Sarah Silverman, ORS v OpenAI, and ORS. 2023. https://news.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Silverman-et-al.-v.-OpenAI-Complaint.pdf

2023
[78]

Jonathan Stempel. 2024. Nvidia is sued by authors over AI use of copyrighted works. https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-is-sued-b y-authors-over-ai-use-copyrighted-works-2024-03-10/

2024
[79]

Christopher Jon Sprigman, Christopher Buccafusco, an d Zachary Burns. 2013. What’s a Name Worth: Experimental Tests of the Value of Attri bution in Intel- lectual Property. Boston University Law Review (2013)

2013
[80]

Peter Stone, Rodney Brooks, Erik Brynjolfsson, Ryan Ca lo, Oren Etzioni, Greg Hager, Julia Hirschberg, Shivaram Kalyanakrishnan, Ece Ka mar, Sarit Kraus, et al. 2016. Artiﬁcial intelligence and life in 2030: the one hundred year study on artiﬁcial intelligence. Report, Stanfor...

2016
[81]

Joseph E Stiglitz. 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Eco- nomic Performance and social Progress. (2009)

2009
[82]

Rebecca Tushnet. 2007. Payment in credit: Copyright la w and subcultural cre- ativity. Law and contemporary problems 70, 2 (2007), 135–174

2007
[83]

Los Angeles Times. 2023. Writers’ strike: What hap- pened, how it ended and its impact on Hollywood. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-05-01/writers-strike-what-to-know-wga-g uild-hollywood-productions

2023
[84]

James Vincent. 2022. The lawsuit that could rewrite the rules of AI copyright. https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft-openai-github-copilot-class-action-lawsuit-ai-co pyright-violation-training-data. [Online; accessed 07-March-2024]

2022
[85]

The New York Times Company (NYT) v Microsoft Corporatio n and ORS. 2023. https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Compla int_Dec2023.pdf

2023
[86]

Dylan Walsh. 2023. The legal issues presented by genera tive AI. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/legal -issues-presented-generative-ai

2023
[87]

Meritocratic

Nicholas Vincent and Brent Hecht. 2024. Sharing the Win nings of AI with Data Dividends: Challenges with “Meritocratic” Data Valuation . In EEAMO Work- shop

2024
[88]

David Gray Widder, Derrick Zhen, Laura Dabbish, and Jam es Herbsleb. 2023. It’s about power: What ethical concerns do software engineers ha ve, and what do they (feel they can) do about them?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transpare...

2023
[89]

Angela Watercutter and Will Bedingﬁeld. 2023. Hollywo od Actors Strike Ends With a Deal That Will Impact AI and Streaming for Decades . https://www.wired.com/story/hollywood-actors-strike -ends-ai-streaming/

2023
[90]

Yankun Wu, Yuta Nakashima, and Noa Garcia. 2023. Not onl y generative art: Stable diﬀusion for content-style disentanglement in art a nalysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International conference on multimedia retr ieval. 199–208

2023
[91]

Allison Woodruﬀ, Renee Shelby, Patrick Gage Kelley, St even Rousso-Schindler, Jamila Smith-Loud, and Lauren Wilcox. 2024. How Knowledge W orkers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their Industries. CHI 2024 (2024)

2024
[92]

I’ve Got Nothing to Lose

Yixin Zou, Abraham H Mhaidli, Austin McCall, and Floria n Schaub. 2018. " I’ve Got Nothing to Lose": Consumers’ Risk Perceptions and Protective Actions after the Equifax Data Breach. InFourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018). 197–216. A INTERVIEW SCRIP...

2018 arXiv
[93]

Mireia Yurrita, Dave Murray-Rust, Agathe Balayn, and A lessandro Bozzon. 2022. Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accounta bility, and Transparency. 535–563

2022
[2024]

In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

User experience design professionals’ perceptions o f generative artiﬁcial intelligence. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adobe. 2024. Adobe Fireﬂy vs. DALL·E 3: Express your vision with the right AI art generator for you. https://www.adobe.com/products/ﬁreﬂy/discover/ﬁreﬂy-vs-dalle.html

2024

[2] [2]

Open AI. 2024. How ChatGPT and our language models are dev eloped. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7842364-how-cha tgpt-and-our-language-models-are-developed

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Davey Alba and Emily Chang. 2024. YouTube Says Ope- nAI Training Sora With Its Videos Would Break Rules. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-04/ youtube-says-openai-training-sora-with-its-

2024

[4] [4]

Bobby Allyn. 2023. ’New York Times’ sues ChatGPT creator OpenAI, Microsoft, for copyright infringement. https://www.npr.org/2023/12/27/1221821750/new-york-times-sues-chatgpt-openai-microsoft-for-copyright- [Online; accessed 07-March-2024]

2023

[5] [5]

Sarah Andersen, Ors v Stability AI, and Ors. 2023. https://ﬁngfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmogjdxvr/IP%20AI%20COPYRIGHT%20complaint.pdf

2023

[6] [6]

Alexis T Baria and Keith Cross. 2021. The brain is a comput er is a brain: neu- roscience’s internal debate and the social signiﬁcance of t he Computational Metaphor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14042 (2021)

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Allie Blaising and Laura Dabbish. 2022. Managing the tra nsition to online free- lance platforms: Self-directed socialization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

2022

[8] [8]

Stack Overﬂow Blog. 2024. Is AI making your code worse? https://stackoverﬂow.blog/2024/03/22/is-ai-making-y our-code-worse

2024