Loading issue research
Commercial training access to copyrighted work should be compensated through a collective- licensing marketplace that pays individual creators as well as large rights-holders.
Verification Status
AI-researched, unverifiedLast Reviewed
Jul 4, 2026
Cited Sources
10
The specific delta between this position and the current mainstream approaches of both major parties.
The bipartisan TRAIN Act (Reps. Dean, D, and Moran, R, in the House; a bipartisan Senate companion) shows cross-party agreement on the transparency prerequisite this issue's clearinghouse proposal depends on. Both parties agree creators should be able to find out if their work was used to train a model, and the bill has drawn support from rights-holder organizations (RIAA) across the industry. Where the parties haven't converged is on the compensation mechanism: the U.S. Copyright Office's own review declined to endorse compulsory licensing, a position generally consistent with a market-based, rights-holder-consent-first approach that draws support from both large-rights-holder interests and creator-advocacy groups. This is less a partisan fight than an industry-vs-individual-creator one. The Innovation Party's delta: pair the bipartisan transparency mechanism (TRAIN Act) with a market-based collective-licensing clearinghouse — not compulsory licensing, consistent with the Copyright Office's own findings — specifically designed to route payment to individual creators rather than only the large rights-holders currently capturing AI licensing deals, a synthesis neither party's current bills fully achieve on their own.
Turn frustration into useful pressure.
If this position misses evidence or a lived consequence, challenge it. If it holds up, help test it locally and connect it to the issues around it.