Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
DACS, AOI, AOP and PICSEL jointly demand retrospective settlement mechanisms for past unauthorised uses, disclosure of training content and how it was obtained, and fair remuneration for future uses.
What changed
DACS, AOI, AOP and PICSEL jointly demand retrospective settlement mechanisms for past unauthorised uses, disclosure of training content and how it was obtained, and fair remuneration for future uses.
These are organisational demands, not evidence of payment or a court finding that all training infringes copyright. Represented membership is not a signatory count.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: visual-creators’ organisations connect compensation for past uses with negotiations over future permission.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
DACS, AOI, AOP and PICSEL jointly demand retrospective settlement mechanisms for past unauthorised uses, disclosure of training content and how it was obtained, and fair remuneration for future uses.
SRC-0114Date and full joint statement: Addressing Past Uses, Transparency and Roadmap
DACS / AOI / AOP / PICSEL · EN · 2025-10-16
Case
Related documents
DOC-0102Our joint statement calling for transparency, fairness and respect for creators’ rights in the age of AICite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “Four organisations demand retrospective settlements, data disclosure and fair licensing.” evt-0115. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.