 |
|
|
|||||
When brands hire illustrators, animators, or other artists, they typically know what theyre paying for: a defined set of creative assets, delivered on deadline, with clear usage rights. But in the age of generative AI, thats no longer the whole picture. Commissioned artwork is increasingly being used not just in finished campaigns, but as training data to power AI modelsmodels that, in turn, generate new, derivative outputs. Often, this use isnt spelled out in contracts. Its not malicious. Its just . . . new. Thats left brands, agencies, and artists in a tricky spottrying to apply old licensing logic to a new generation of tools. The result is a growing disconnect between how creative work is made, how its used, and how its paid for. Whats needed isnt a philosophical debate about machine creativity. Its a practical frameworkone flexible enough for fast-moving teams, but structured enough to protect the humans still at the heart of the process. The Creative Loop Has Changed Traditionally, artists get paid for what they delivera character design, a series of storyboards, a set of icons or illustrations. The license defines where, how long, and in what formats those assets can be used. But as AI workflows become more embedded in creative production, the loop looks different. A brand commissions original artwork. That artwork is used not only in campaigns, but to fine-tune a generative model trained to produce content in the style of the original work. From there, marketing teams or third-party vendors can generate dozens of variations on demandwithout going back to the original artist. Theres nothing inherently unethical about this. In many cases, its efficient and creatively useful. But if the artist who trained the model isnt compensated for that secondary use, a value gap opens up. And that gap becomes a reputational risk for the brandespecially as creative professionals, advocacy groups, and consumers become more AI-literate. A Shift from Ownership to Participation This isnt a question of whether AI should be used. That debate is over. The question now is how to ensure the humans who shape the aesthetic intelligence of these systems are fairly recognized and fairly paid. One path forward is to rethink the licensing structure. Instead of defaulting to flat fees for fixed deliverables, brands can structure creative engagements to reflect how derivative value is created over time. That starts by offering two distinct paths: one built around full ownership, and the other designed for ongoing participation. In the ownership model, brands pay a higher up-front fee that covers the rights to train a model, generate derivative outputs, and use those outputs across campaigns without future royalties. Its clean, comprehensive, and often a fit for fast-scaling companies or complex campaigns with long content tails. In the participation model, brands pay a standard commission fee and then compensate the artist over time, based on how their work is used to generate new content. This might look like a royalty per output, a revenue share, or a pooled licensing structure tied to usage volumeakin to how publishers or music rights organizations operate. Neither option is perfect. But both reflect the realities of modern creative workwhere original contributions can fuel a long arc of generative production. More importantly, they offer artists a choice in how their labor and influence are valued. What a Smarter Licensing Framework Looks Like For brands and agencies ready to adopt more transparent compensation models, the good news is this doesnt require a reinvention of the creative contract. A few key mechanisms, easily added to existing agreements, can bring clarity to how AI-derived work is used and monetized. The first is a Commission-to-Model clause. It makes explicit that commissioned work will be used to train a model, and defines the scope of that use. These clauses can specify what kind of model is being trained, whether third-party partners will have access, and how long the model can be used. Crucially, they establish triggers for expanded usesay, across new business units or global campaignsthat would require a conversation or renewal. Think of it as the AI-era equivalent of a sync license for a song: it clarifies how the source material can be extended and scaled. Next is a Derivative Use Laddera pricing framework that reflects how far an AI-generated asset strays from the original commission. Minor edits or resizes might be included in the base fee. AI-generated variants used within the same campaign could carry a modest uplift. Broader reuse across platforms, regions, or product lines would trigger higher fees or require relicensing. The goal isnt to over-monetize creativity. Its to avoid ambiguity and allow both sides to plan with confidence. For brands building longer-term systems, where a model trained on original artwork might generate thousands of outputs, a royalty-bearing model license may be the most aligned. This could take the form of a flat fee per generated asset, a quarterly revenue share, or a pooled royalty structure when multiple artists contribute to a shared model. The mechanics can vary. What matters is the principle: as the system creates more outputs, more value should flow back to the creative source. Each of these frameworks can integrate into existing production workflows. But together, they offer something more powerful: a shift in mindset from we own what we paid for to we share in what we build together. What Artists Want (and Brands Can Offer) Artists arent looking to halt innovation. Most understand the value of generative tools. Many already use them in their own workflows. What they want is transparency, consent, and a fair share of the value created when their work is used to teach machines. That doesnt mean every output requires a payment. But it does mean brands should be prepared to offer clear termsnot just to protect themselves legally, but to build trust with the creative talent they rely on. A Reputation-Forward Approach to AI As generative AI becomes normalized in creative production, scrutiny is rising: lawsuits over unlicensed training data, open letters from illustrators, AI-generated brand work that backfires online. In this environment, its no longer enough to stay quiet and hope no one asks. Responsible AI use is becoming part of a brands public posture. A clear, fair compensation model for human contributors isnt just ethically soundits reputationally smart. Put simply: compensating the people who make your model smarter is good business. Pay the Source The creative economy is shiftingfrom artifact to algorithm, from fixed deliverables to living systems, from single commissions to ongoing creative loops. In that new reality, we need new rules. Payig the source isnt about holding onto the past. Its about designing a future where artists, technologists, and brands can build together, with clarity and trust. That future is already arriving. The only question is whether we meet it with contracts that reflect the tools we useor keep pretending the old ones are enough.
Category:
E-Commerce
Logan Ivey has tried everything to cut down on his screen time. He bought a modern dumbphone thats designed to be used as little as possible, tried a device called a Brick that removes distracting apps and notifications from a smartphone, and even resorted to a classic flip phone when all else failed. Still, nothing was working. So he turned his iPhone into a 6-pound weight. The 6 Pound Phone Case is a bulky, stainless steel contraption designed to make your smartphone extremely annoying to use. Inspired by the aesthetics of an 80s brick phone, the case transforms a typical, ultra-portable iPhone into a cumbersome eyesoreand thats the whole point. Ivey, who has been using the case for the past two months, says it has helped cut his screen time in half. Currently, the 6 Pound Phone Case is just a prototype, but Ivey is raising money through a Kickstarter page to sell a small batch of the cases for a whopping $210 each (the hefty price tag, he says, is due to the high manufacturing costs and current tariffs on steel). [Photo: Matter Neuroscience] Iveys invention is the latest in a recent series of out-there projects designed to help smartphone users hack their brains into cutting the doomscroll short. In the late 2010s, dumbphones enjoyed a spike in popularitybut since then, many users have met with the unfortunate reality that they need smartphone functions like maps, Google, email, and other services to navigate the day-to-day. Creative minds have thought up all kinds of solutions to this conundrum, including an app that forces you to literally touch grass before you scroll, a phone case that doubles as a tiny screen, and an app that uses an animated bean character to guilt-trip you out of going on social media. The 6 Pound Phone Case is the newest addition to this wacky smartphone detox lineupand it might just be the most effective. [Photo: Matter Neuroscience] Designing a 6-Pound Phone Case Ivey uses social media for a living. Hes both an independent creator and a full-time social media producer for Matter Neuroscience, a company he describes as dedicated to bridging the gap between everyday behavior and molecular science. Part of Matter Neurosciences mission has included building an app that lets users track their emotions every week to understand what kind of behaviors drive happiness. Through this project, Ivey says, he realized just how much his phone was sapping his energy and blocking his feel-good neurotransmitters. After trying dumbphones, a flip phone, and app blockers, Ivey realized that, especially given his job in social media, it was just too inconvenient to try replacing his smartphone. Instead, he needed a way to make his iPhone feel more like a tool than an addictive pastime. [Photo: Matter Neuroscience] I asked myself, How can I keep all the functionality of my phone, but still use it less? Ivey says. Then I thought, like, What if my phone was just really heavy and inconvenient to use? Matter Neuroscience partnered with Ivey to help make the idea reality. He turned to the clunky form factor of an 80s brick phone as inspiration, designing a case with one flat surface and two jutting rectangles on its top and bottom. Cutouts for charging, volume buttons, power, and a tapered camera hole keep every part of the phone functionalbut its stainless steel construction, which can be removed only by unscrewing four screws with an Allen wrench, makes it physically difficult to hold for too long. At 6 pounds, your hands and arms physically get tired while using it, the cases Kickstarter page reads. That fatigue reminds you to put the phone down. Further, it adds, the cases size is inconveniently big, purposefully preventing the user from tucking it in their pocket. You have to carry it in a bag like a laptop, or leave it in another room. That means fewer phantom notifications, fewer sidewalk swipes, and fewer brain rot sessions while pooping (and maybe less hemorrhoids). [Image: courtesy Logan Ivey] In Iveys experience, the 6 Pound Phone Case has cut his screen time from four and a half hours per week to just two. While Ivey does hope to sell some of the cases through his Kickstarter with Matter Neuroscience, he doesnt have plans to patent the design, and sees it as a concept that could have genuine potential for other phone case companies. Those little moments in life where you just instinctively reach for your phone, I don’t do anymore, Ivey says, because I either don’t have it on me or it’s too heavy.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you’ve noticed that the internet feels different latelymore cluttered, harder to navigateyoure not imagining it. The system is breaking down in real time, and by 2026, researchers predict that 90% of web content will be AI-generated. Quality journalism is disappearing behind paywalls while feeds fill with noise designed purely to capture attention. An innovation that was supposed to democratize information is now drowning us in it. I know this intimately because I helped build it. As founder of AppNexus, which sold to AT&T for $1.6 billion, and former CTO of Right Media, I created the technology that became the backbone of digital advertising, a multibillion-dollar industry and the economic engine funding everything from major newsrooms to niche blogs. Now that engine is stalling. You are now the product Heres what happened: instead of paying for what you have actually read or watched, the advertising system turned you into the product. Every click, search, and scroll got auctioned to the highest bidder. You became the currency. And once the dollars followed your data rather than content quality, the value of real information slipped into the background. The effects are everywhere. News organizations are consolidating rapidly or shuttering entirely. AI-generated slop is creeping into YouTube and other online communities, and flooding search results with spam. Trust in the media and the online ecosystem is on the brink of collapse. Shoes chase you around the internet, misinformation spreads faster than facts, and billions vanish to fraud. It feels like the end. But Ive seen this before. A recurring pattern The internet has a pattern: it breaks, people panic, and then it is rebuilt into something much better. Web 1.0 gave us static pages and basic connectivity. Web 2.0 brought user-generated content and social interactionbut not before people warned it would destroy traditional media entirely. Each transition looked catastrophic while it was happening. Remember when mobile first arrived? Mobile websites were impossible to read. Ads covered half your screen. Everything required pinch-to-zoom and patience. Companies spent years trying to shove desktop experiences onto phones before they figured out that mobile needed its own infrastructure. It felt broken and annoying, until it didnt. With phones constantly in hand and the first screen for most people, we barely remember the awkward transition. Another phase Were in that awkward phase again. Our attention is fragmented across more platforms, devices, and channels than ever. We seek information and entertainment everywhere, and we have higher expectations: we want access without annoyance, quality without cost, personalization without intrusion. The current infrastructure wasnt built for this reality. Now, AI has cascaded into everything. Its generating slop thats flooding search results and feeds, yes, but its also the tool were using to rebuild. We are reorganizing our lives around it: how we work, how we find information, how we consume content. What some are calling the “agentic AI economy”where AI is integrated as an intelligent intermediary that reasons, plans, and acts to solve problemsis starting to take shape. The internets infrastructure will be fine once it catches up to that shift and the industry rethinks its fundamental economics. Course correction Licensing deals, revenue sharing, and pay-per-crawl compensation models are taking shape to course correct and ensure publishers start to be paid for their value and those will continue to evolve as the industry sees what sticks. Meanwhile, AI companies themselves, OpenAI being the most recent, are investing in advertising infrastructure, recognizing that if chat and AI engines are here to stay as primary channels, they need sustainable business models beyond subscriptions. New targeting approaches leveraging agentic AI are also on the horizon, offering the promise of eliminating waste and fraud that would otherwise go toward funding made-for-advertising websites or AI slop. Companies like mine, Scope3, offer agentic advertising, using AI agents to match ads to specific content themes and values rather than relying on personal data or demographics. Try this: copy a page youve browsed and paste it into ChatGPT, then ask it to produce an ad and compare the result to whats actually on the page. More likely than not, ChatGPT gave a better ad without even needing your browser history or data. This makes content the product again, not you. Quality publishers get rewarded while content farms and fraudulent sites are starved of revenue. These are proof points that the economic infrastructure is being rebuilt. A turning point The internets promise doesnt have to die with its decline. Were at a turning point where we know AI will shape the webthats inevitable. Now we decide what kind of system we build with it. If the attention economy monetized distraction, the agentic AI economy has the chance to monetize trust. We can use AI to filter noise instead of creating it. We can reward publications that invest in fact-checking and original reporting. We can connect ads based on values and genuine interest rather than demographic profiles. Or we can let the internet collapseeither descending into unusable chaos where AI slop buries everything of value or splitting into a world where quality content exists only behind paywalls most people cant afford. The builders who understand this moment, those championing dynamics that reward quality and trust, are ready to shape whats next. The internet we want is possible. We just have to choose to build it.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||