Xorte logo

News Markets Groups

USA | Europe | Asia | World| Stocks | Commodities



Add a new RSS channel

 
 


Keywords

2025-10-17 11:30:00| Fast Company

Hello again from Fast Company and thanks for reading Plugged In. Before I go any further, a bit of quick self-serving promotion: This week, we published our fifth annual Next Big Things in Tech list. Featuring 137 projects and people in 31 categories, its our guide to technologies that are already reshaping business and life in general, with plenty of headroom to go further in the years to come. None of them are the usual suspectsand many have largely flown under the radar. Take a look, and youll come away with some discoveries. Two weeks ago in this space, I wrote about Sora, OpenAIs new social network devoted wholly to generating and remixing 10-second synthetic videos. At the time of launch, the company said its guardrails prohibited the inclusion of living celebrities, but also declared that it didnt plan to police copyright violations unless owners explicitly opted out of granting permission. Consequently, the clips people shared were rife with familiar faces such as Pikachu and SpongeBob. Not surprisingly, that policy gave Hollywood fits. Quickly changing course, OpenAI tweaked its algorithm to reject prompts that clearly reference copyrighted IP. A handful of high-profile Sora members have used its Cameo feature to create shareable AI versions of themselves, including iJustine, Logan Paul, Mark Cuban, and OpenAIs own Sam Altman. Theyre everywhere on the service. But with other current celebs off the table, the Sora-obsessed turned to one of the few remaining available sources of cultural touchstones: dead people. That too has proven controversial. Most notably, the daughters of George Carlin, Martin Luther King Jr., Robin Williams, and Malcolm X have all decried the use of Sora to create synthetic videos of their fathers. Please, just stop sending me AI videos of Dad, wrote Zelda Williams on Instagram. If youve got any decency, just stop doing this to him and to me, to everyone even, full stop. I am sympathetic to their angst. In 2021, a genealogy site called MyHeritage presaged the Sora era by launching a feature called Deep Nostalgia that let you turn old family photographs into brief videos. Out of curiosity, I uploaded a photo of a deceased relative. The moment I saw the results, I regretted having done so. Being constantly exposed to AI simulacrums of your parent created by random strangers must be agonizing. In response to concerns about bad-taste AI resurrections, OpenAI told The Washington Posts Tatum Hunter and Drew Harwell that it would allow representatives of the recently deceased to block Sora depictions. But the company didnt specify what it considered to be recent. Whatever its definition, its not going to make everyone happy. The aforementioned famous fathers died anywhere from 1965 (Malcolm X) to 2014 (Williams). They surely wont fall under a recency exception. Yet the old bit of wisdom tragedy plus time equals comedywhich apparently originated with another dead person, comedian Steve Allendoesnt always hold true. It depends on the context. Even more than a decade later, Robin Williamss death by suicide still feels like an incalculable tragedy. I have not run across any videos of him on Sora, and would prefer I never do. But I dont feel the same way about Queen Elizabeth II, who made it to 96 and was spry until her 2022 passing. Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed a jag of Sora remixes that began with a clip of her praising the cheese puffs at Costco (delightfully orange) and went on to show her relishing other delicacies in various venues around the world. Some of these clips made me LOL, not figuratively but literally. In fact, the only reason I peruse Sora at all is because an overwhelming percentage of the items in my feed are fanciful and at least aspirationally funny. AI slop of the sort that striveshowever clumsilyfor realism is scarce on the service. The same is hardly true on other social networks such as Facebook and TikTok, which are infested with machine-generated kindhearted celebrities and cute animals. Im not saying that Sora is consistently riotous. Ive scrolled through a lot of videos of MLKand Mister Rogers, Bob Ross, and othersin which the only point is that theyre mouthing some anodyne term they wouldnt have used, or talking about Sora itself. That gets tiresome fast, and makes me at least slightly queasy. It might even be slop. Its just not the sum total of Sora. I have not been above making my own Sora videos depicting the departed. Inspired by the fact that Orson Welles once recorded a radio commercial for frozen peas, I prompted for a video depicting him filming such an ad. It came out entertaining, in part because Soras version of Welles reminded me of the late John Candys wonderful impression of him. Other users remixed the clip into ones showing Welles endorsing everything from twine to camp chairs, starring less and less convincing approximations of the legendary actor-director. Maybe you had to be there. But I found it to be a rewarding if minor act of collaborative creativity, not a regrettable coarsening of the internet. All in all, encouraging people to channel their AI-video-generating energy into clips that are playful, genuinely social, and cordoned off from reality, as Sora does, seems like a positive development to me. Still, I try to show grace toward the feelings of others and would accept more restrictive policies on the use of deceased celebrities. Maybe the service could permit them only if nobody alive ever met the person in question. Cleopatra and Abraham Lincln would pass that test; Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein would not. (Thats before you get to the fact that the estates of some celebrities have deals with licensing companies that probably arent thrilled with Soras unauthorized use, such as CMG Worldwide, which represents the Monroe and Einstein estates.) If nothing else, building new guardrails around specific categories of famed individuals no longer with us would be an interesting challenge for some engineer at OpenAI. I cant see the company investing much effort in it. But in a strange way, its done the world a favor by forcing us to confront questions like this while the stakes remain relatively low. AI is only going to get better at deepfaking people, famous and otherwise. Better to figure out how we feel about that now, before the synthetic dead folks are truly indistinguishable from the real thing. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company Inside Microsoft’s quest to make Windows 11’s AI irresistibleExecutives with a combined 130+ years of tenure on the company’s decades of work to get people to talk to their PCsand why the time might finally be right. Read More  Billionaire investor Frank McCourt is not giving up on his dream of acquiring TikTokThe financier says he wants a closer look at the Trump deal for the wildly popular social-media platform. Read More  Goodbye, SEO. Hello, GEOHow AI search is rewriting digital strategy. Read More  How kids are getting around classroom phone bans‘Kids will always find a way, but honestly, the creativity involved is a skill worth developing,’ one teacher commented. Read More  This addictive game is like ‘SimCity’ but for transit nerdsThe goal of ‘Subway Builder’ is to move people from A to B. Some believe it might just start a transit revolution in the process. Read More  5 time-saving Google Calendar tricks you should be usingMake your calendar work for you, not the other way around. Read More 


Category: E-Commerce

 

LATEST NEWS

2025-10-17 11:00:00| Fast Company

We are in an era of strategic silenceno longer in the age of the activist CEO. Instead, business leaders are being told to lie low and stay in their lane to avoid unwanted attention, including from the White House. In the wake of Jimmy Kimmels removal from ABC, CEOs are reportedly turning down press and speaking opportunities. Today, leaders are faced with the question of when to speak up . . . and when to stay strategically silent in order to protect their constituents.  Reverend Mariann Budde is an expert on speaking up. She was thrust into the national spotlight during President Trumps inauguration when she preached a sermon urging him to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. In the weeks that followed, Budde was publicly criticized by President Trump, and received both hate mailas well as an overwhelming amount of gratitude for speaking up.  Budde believes bravery can be learned. She is the author of How We Learn to Be Brave, a book about what courage looks like in our lives, and how we can cultivate it. Shell be releasing an adaptation for younger readers, We Can Be Brave, in late October.  Reverend Budde sat down with Fast Company to discuss how leaders should think about speaking up in an environment where doing so has very real consequences. In this paid Premium story, youll: Hear how Reverend Buddes decision to speak out against President Trump affected herboth negatively and positively Understand the time and place leaders should speak out Get advice for dealing with the aftermath of speaking up [The following conversation has been edited for clarity.] How can leaders distinguish between when its necessary to speak up, versus when its actually not worth the risk and, in fact, foolhardy? It’s a very important question. And if there were a formula then it would be easy, right? We would all know. And part of the uncertainty and the risk is that we don’t know. Is this an important timeeither for our personal integrity, the well-being of others, or the interests of our community or businessto speak out? Is this a time when we have reputational strength and wherewithal to withstand anticipated blowback?  You don’t have to rise to every occasion, if it’s not wise. I think in times like this, these are serious questions to ask, because whole constituencies are at risk. However, there are times when we self-censor or when we step back unnecessarily, out of the anticipation of consequences that may or may not be real. There are dangers when we all take the safe route.  It leaves a big gap for really unhealthy dynamics in society to have free reign. I think we are at risk of seeing some of that now, to be honest. Whats the cost to society if we all take the safe route? Unfortunately, in the beginning, you don’t see it unless you are near a vulnerable population, which is why proximity to those who are most impacted by the large societal movements is so important. I live in Washington, D.C., and people ask me: What’s it like in Washington now? It really depends on where you’re standing. For some people, life is just fine, and for other people, it is a living terror. How do you decide when to use your voice? Carefully. I don’t speak up every day. I did not and I don’t speak up on everything. I weigh my very limited public impact potential carefully.  I try to stay in my lane, which is where spiritual values that I represent are in alignment with the democratic aspirations of our country. When I speak up, I do so from that foundation, and also from a constituency base that I personally represent.  Whats a time when you didnt speak up and wish you had? I wake up almost every day thinking of human inflicted starvation in Gaza. I am asked repeatedly to speak out, and I have done so very rarely, in part because I have very deep ties within the Jewish community here in Washington and in this country. I recognize not only the complexity of the situation, but also the impact that things I might say or do. The Archbishop of the Anglican church in Jerusalem asks us sometimes not to say anything because it just makes things worse for them. But I tell you, it doesn’t feel good to be quiet sometimes. Not that I have any illusions in this particular political environment that I would make a difference, which is another calculation I make: If I have absolutely no chance of affecting change by what I say, I have to decide if it’s worth the cost. You have spoken up in a very public way that has thrust you into the national spotlight. What was the impact on you personally? Well, first of all, it was a very unusual opportunity that was given to me to preach at the post inaugural prayer service. In terms of the upside, that was a privilege. The downside, it was obviously hard. It cost me a lot to think that through. I clearly offended the President and his inner circle, and they took the opportunity to make that known and it set in motion an onslaught of reaction for about three weeks. Our entire church was flooded with some pretty mean-spirited and false accusations. So that was the hard part. The other side to it was also a huge outpouring of gratitude, the likes of which I’ve never experienced. Boxes and boxes of mailso much we couldn’t open it. People wrote me letters that began with, I’m not a religious person, but I wanted to tell you how much what you said meant to me. Thank you for reminding people that my child is a human. What advice do you have for people who do want to use their voice in a very public way, such as the way you have? Maybe people such as other leaders? Its very helpful to be grounded. For three or four days, you’re at the height of all this energy and attention, and then the world goes silent. And it’s time to take out the garbage and remember that you forgot 17 things on your to-do list. Its helpful to remember while theres a response to you, your life is rooted somewhere else. We’re not the first generation of Americans to experience significant pulling back from values that we thought had been well-established. It was no picnic in the early 1920s when resegregation was introduced into this country. What did the people do then, and what can we do now? It’s also good to have a sense of humor, and a couple of children around to keep you grounded. We are at a time of deep disconnection and polarization. What does good leadership look like right now, especially if youre leading people who are deeply divided? We don’t realize how influenced we have become by the contempt thats poisoning our society. We can’t have conversations with people who differ from us in ways that don’t dehumanize and belittle one another. If we can’t figure out how to talk to each other across our differences, we will never, ever solve the problems that we’re facing as a society.  You do have to speak up in the face of hatred and intolerance, but how you do it matters. You have to meet that knd of intolerance with firm conviction and persuasionand yet not robbing that person of their inherent dignity as well. What does it mean to be brave? From our earliest days as human beings, we have to and are summoned to do things that we have never done before. Stepping into something that is unfamiliar carries some degree of risk, and yet this is the miracle of our existence. Even though we’re afraid, we know exactly what we’re supposed to do. Sometimes we’re really excited because we feel like we’re in our element and we can do this. Other times, we’re terrified. We don’t know if we can do it. And we learn sometimes that we can’t, in fact, do that thing, and we fail. Then the most important learning is what is the brave moment after failure or disappointment or making a mistake? I find that the brave or the courageous call in those times is to step up, learn, wipe off whatever humiliation or wounding that happens, and persevere.


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-10-17 10:40:00| Fast Company

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

 

Latest from this category

17.10Inflation is soaring, but Aldis Thanksgiving dinner will feed 10 people for just $40. Heres how to get it
17.10Toonstars new Uncle Roger cartoon embraces AIbut slop its not
17.10Why is Bitcoin crashing? Crypto king sinks to four-month low as investors seek safety in gold
17.10Quantum computing stocks are sinking today: Whats happening with Rigetti, D-Wave, QUBT, and IonQ?
17.10I see dead people on Sora, and Im conflicted about it
17.10Mariann Budde, Bishop of Washington, on leading with courage
17.10How artists should get paid in the age of AI
17.10This guy cut his screen time by making his phone incredibly annoying to pick up. Now you can, too
E-Commerce »

All news

17.10China accuses US of undermining WTO with tariffs, sanctions
17.10Inflation is soaring, but Aldis Thanksgiving dinner will feed 10 people for just $40. Heres how to get it
17.10US Chamber of Commerce sues Trump administration over $100,000 H-1B visa fee
17.10JSW Energy Q2 Results: Cons PAT falls 17% YoY to Rs 705 crore but revenue climbs 60%
17.10China probes top military general, punishes 9 senior officers in latest corruption crackdown
17.10UK stock market hit by nerves over US banks
17.10Dixon Technologies Q2 Results: Cons PAT soars 72% YoY to Rs 670 crore, revenue up 29%
17.10Tata Tech Q2 Results: Profit rises 5% YoY to Rs 166 crore on non-core business boost
More »
Privacy policy . Copyright . Contact form .