Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
IO published a joint position demanding creators’ authorization and remuneration, training-data transparency, and AI-output labels, arguing that repeated individual refusals were impractical while remaining open to technological progress.
What changed
IO published a joint position demanding creators’ authorization and remuneration, training-data transparency, and AI-output labels, arguing that repeated individual refusals were impractical while remaining open to technological progress.
Uses the IO page date; joint signatories and first publication remain to be checked. Policy demands are not rules already in force.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: preserves differences within a profession over training permission, remuneration, and technological adaptation, without merging all creators’ organizations into one anti-AI camp.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
IO published a joint position demanding creators’ authorization and remuneration, training-data transparency, and AI-output labels, arguing that repeated individual refusals were impractical while remaining open to technological progress.
SRC-0205Lines 84–128: date, full position, and PDF link; attachment and complete signatory list were not checked.
Illustratoren Organisation e.V. · DE · 2023-04-04
Case
Related documents
DOC-0193AI, but fair: creative-industries position paper on AI useCite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “IO publishes joint creative-industries position, KI aber fair.” evt-0208. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.