{"table":"claims","corpusVersion":"1.0.0","generatedAt":"2026-07-21T12:00:00Z","demo":false,"license":"CC BY 4.0 — cite AI Tribune (aitribune.org)","count":86,"rows":[{"id":"clm-0001","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-liability-relief-partnership","documentId":"doc-openai-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-13","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"This framework would extend the tradition of government receiving learnings and access, where appropriate, in exchange for providing the private sector relief from the 781 and counting proposed AI-related bills already introduced this year in US states. This patchwork of regulations risks bogging down innovation and, in the case of AI, undermining America’s leadership position.","pageRef":"p. 6","frames":["frame-patchwork","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.92,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0002","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-openai-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-13","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI, and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.","pageRef":"p. 5","frames":["frame-china"],"confidence":0.93,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0003","actorId":"anthropic","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-anthropic-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-06","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"We advocate for tightening semiconductor export restrictions so as to ensure America and its allies can capitalize on the opportunities of powerful AI systems, and to prevent our adversaries from accessing the AI infrastructure that enables powerful AI. This includes controlling H20 chips, requiring government-to-government agreements for countries hosting large chip deployments, and reducing no-license-required thresholds.","pageRef":"sec. Strengthening Export Controls","frames":["frame-national-security"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0004","actorId":"google","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-google-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-13","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.","pageRef":"sec. Invest in AI","frames":["frame-patchwork"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0005","actorId":"nvidia","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-nvidia-diffusion-2025","date":"2025-01-13","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"In its last days in office, the Biden Administration seeks to undermine America’s leadership with a 200+ page regulatory morass, drafted in secret and without proper legislative review. This sweeping overreach would impose bureaucratic control over how America’s leading semiconductors, computers, systems and even software are designed and marketed globally.","pageRef":"para. 5","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0006","actorId":"microsoft","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-microsoft-diffusion-2025","date":"2025-02-27","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Make it simpler. Stop relegating American friends and allies into a second tier that undermines their confidence in ongoing access to American products. Eliminate the quantitative caps that would interfere with a well-functioning economic market. And keep what matters most, such as the qualitative security standards and AI use restrictions that protect national security.","pageRef":"para. 13","frames":["frame-national-security","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0007","actorId":"iti","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-iti-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-15","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"We encourage the Trump Administration, and BIS in particular, to withdraw the Interim Final Rule (IFR) on a Framework for AI Diffusion and open a new, deliberative rulemaking process with stakeholders to protect national security without undermining U.S. companies’ of all sizes ability to compete globally.","pageRef":"p. 8","frames":["frame-national-security","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0008","actorId":"a16z","askId":"ask-open-weights-freedom","documentId":"doc-a16z-ntia-2024","date":"2024-03-27","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Open source software provides much of the foundation of the internet, is extensively used by government agencies, and is widely considered to be more secure from malicious actors than proprietary software. Consequently, there is no inherent reason to prohibit the creation, dissemination, and use of Open Models.","pageRef":"p. 2","frames":["frame-innovation","frame-national-security"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0009","actorId":"public-citizen","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-public-citizen-preemption-eo-2025","date":"2025-11-21","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"However, its purpose is clear: create a standing mechanism for the federal government to attack a wide range of state laws even before those laws are fully implemented and, ideally, chill them from being adopted in the first place.","pageRef":"Section 3","frames":[],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0010","actorId":"nma","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-nma-actionplan-2025","date":"2025-03-14","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"The AI Action Plan should encourage the continued development of free market licensing to support a symbiotic relationship between content creators, publishers, and AI developers.","pageRef":"Marketplace Licensing section","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0011","actorId":"fli","askId":"ask-mandatory-predeployment-review","documentId":"doc-fli-eo14409-2026","date":"2026-06-03","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Voluntary frameworks are not enough, however. We need a mandatory government pre-deployment review process for the most powerful AI systems, allowing the government to block the release of systems that pose an unacceptable national security risk.","pageRef":"para. 3 of statement","frames":["frame-national-security","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0012","actorId":"netchoice","askId":"ask-mandatory-predeployment-review","documentId":"doc-netchoice-eo14409-2026","date":"2026-06-02","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"There is no doubt future administrations will attempt to do the same when it comes to AI. Unless further guardrails against this kind of graft are put in place or Congress finally acts to deliver a national AI framework, we are concerned the collaborative framework President Trump has put forward will not remain voluntary.","pageRef":"para. 3","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Qualified support of EO 14409's voluntary approach; coded oppose relative to a mandatory review requirement."},{"id":"clm-0013","actorId":"calaborfed","askId":"ask-worker-consultation","documentId":"doc-calaborfed-actionplan-2025","date":"2025-07-23","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Americans who work for a living deserve more. We need sensible guardrails to ensure jobs aren't decimated, guarantees of meaningful human oversight of the technology, and the exploration of a national four-day work week at full-time pay.","pageRef":"Gonzalez statement, para. 1","frames":["frame-worker-protection"],"confidence":0.6,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Statement of Lorena Gonzalez condemning the AI Action Plan; coded support relative to worker-guardrail asks."},{"id":"clm-0014","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-federal-frontier-framework","documentId":"doc-senate-judiciary-ai-2023","date":"2023-05-16","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Number one, I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards. Number two, I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations.","pageRef":"response to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)","frames":["frame-accountability","frame-catastrophic-risk"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript."},{"id":"clm-0015","actorId":"ibm","askId":"ask-federal-frontier-framework","documentId":"doc-senate-judiciary-ai-2023","date":"2023-05-16","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"just come back to the question of, of whether we need an independent agency. I mean, I think we don't want to slow down regulation to address real risks right now. Right? So we have existing regulatory authorities in place who have been clear that they have the ability to regulate in their respective domains.","pageRef":"response to Sen. Christopher Coons (D-CT)","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Speaker: Christina Montgomery, Chief Privacy & Trust Officer, IBM. Third-party verbatim transcript."},{"id":"clm-0016","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-federal-frontier-framework","documentId":"doc-senate-commerce-altman-2025","date":"2025-05-08","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"I think that would be disastrous. I to give a more specific answer to your previous question, which I think touches on why it would be so bad, there are three key inputs to these AI systems.","pageRef":"response to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) question on a 'heavy-handed prior approval government regulatory process for AI'","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript; transcript's 'I to give' artifact preserved."},{"id":"clm-0017","actorId":"anthropic","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-anthropic-transparency-2025","date":"2025-07-07","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"We are therefore proposing a targeted transparency framework, one that could be applied at the federal, state, or international level, and which applies only to the largest AI systems and developers while establishing clear disclosure requirements for safety practices.","pageRef":"para. 2","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0018","actorId":"state-ags","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-state-ags-moratorium-2025","date":"2025-05-16","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI.","pageRef":"p. 3","frames":["frame-consumer-protection"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Signed by 40 attorneys general, bipartisan."},{"id":"clm-0019","actorId":"us-chamber","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-uschamber-moratorium-2025","date":"2025-06-09","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"More than 1,000 AI-related bills have already been introduced at the state and local level this year. Without a federal moratorium there will be a growing patchwork of state and local laws that will significantly limit AI development and deployment.","pageRef":"letter body, para. 2","frames":["frame-patchwork","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.97,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Coalition letter of 250+ business associations to Senate leaders Thune and Schumer."},{"id":"clm-0020","actorId":"encode","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-encode-moratorium-2025","date":"2025-06-30","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to strike the AI moratorium from the budget reconciliation text to protect our families. It is irresponsible and short sighted to strip children, creators, and Americans from all backgrounds of their most basic protections and tie the hands of state legislators.","pageRef":"p. 2","frames":["frame-consumer-protection","frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Co-led 140+ organization letter (with Common Sense Media, Young People's Alliance, ARI and others)."},{"id":"clm-0021","actorId":"public-citizen","askId":"ask-preempt-state-frontier","documentId":"doc-public-citizen-gaai-2026","date":"2026-06-04","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"This is a disastrous proposal that Big Tech is celebrating. This bill strips states of their authority to respond to real harms consumers are experiencing.","pageRef":"J.B. Branch statement, para. 1","frames":["frame-consumer-protection","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0022","actorId":"sag-aftra","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-sagaftra-nofakes-2025","date":"2025-04-09","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"SAG-AFTRA members and those who rely on their face and voice for their livelihood will be able to demand platforms remove illegal voice and image clones. Creatives will also be able to seek damages from those who intentionally cause harm.","pageRef":"para. 3 (Duncan Crabtree-Ireland statement)","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0023","actorId":"ccia","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-ccia-nofakes-2025","date":"2025-09-10","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"By federalizing a new likeness right and coupling it to notice-and-staydown requirements, aggressive statutory damages, and easy unmasking, it creates millions in new annual costs for digital services, both small and large, which favors incumbents and creates barriers to entry.","pageRef":"section 'The Bottom Line'","frames":["frame-small-business","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0024","actorId":"authors-guild","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-welch-train-2025","date":"2025-07-25","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"This bill helps to achieve that commonsense goal by creating an administrative subpoena process that allows copyright owners to obtain information from AI companies about the works used to train their models. As the Guild has long recognized, this kind of transparency is essential to giving authors the ability to enforce their rights.","pageRef":"section 'Read what leading voices in the creative industries are saying about the TRAIN Act', Authors Guild statement","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0025","actorId":"riaa","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-welch-train-2025","date":"2025-07-25","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Artists deserve to know when their works are used and determine the parameters – the Transparency & Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act empowers rightsholders with valuable insight into which specific inputs AI companies are copying to train their models. Just as importantly, it also ensures a clear path to the courts when authorization has not been given.","pageRef":"section 'Read what leading voices in the creative industries are saying about the TRAIN Act', Mitch Glazier statement","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0026","actorId":"nvidia","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-nvidia-nobackdoors-2025","date":"2025-08-05","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Embedding backdoors and kill switches into chips would be a gift to hackers and hostile actors. It would undermine global digital infrastructure and fracture trust in U.S. technology.","pageRef":"section 'Hard-Coded, Single-Point Controls Are Always a Bad Idea'","frames":["frame-national-security"],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0027","actorId":"iti","askId":"ask-chip-export-enforcement","documentId":"doc-iti-chipsecurity-2026","date":"2026-02-27","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"a government chip tracking mandate would create the impression of deepening U.S. government control over the American AI stack, fueling questions about the security, reliability, and privacy of U.S. technology and pushing the very countries that should be core customers of U.S. providers toward alternatives","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-china"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0028","actorId":"meta","askId":"ask-federal-ai-sandbox","documentId":"doc-commerce-wtas-sandbox-2025","date":"2025-09-19","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"The Chairman’s regulatory sandbox proposal offers a broad scope that could enable a wide range of business practices, research, and AI technologies—not just a select few—to benefit from the program.","pageRef":"section 'Meta'","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0029","actorId":"ari","askId":"ask-federal-frontier-framework","documentId":"doc-ari-risk-eval-2025","date":"2025-09-29","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Congress has spent a lot of time over the last year debating whether to do away with regulations for the AI industry – this bill is a welcome show of bipartisan support for creating rules of the road to protect the public.","pageRef":"para. 3","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0030","actorId":"anthropic","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-anthropic-sb53-2025","date":"2025-09-08","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"SB 53’s transparency requirements will have an important impact on frontier AI safety. Without it, labs with increasingly powerful models could face growing incentives to dial back their own safety and disclosure programs in order to compete.","pageRef":"'What SB 53 achieves' section, closing paragraph","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0031","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-deemed-compliance","documentId":"doc-openai-newsom-2025","date":"2025-08-12","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"In particular, we recommend that California treat frontier model developers as compliant with state requirements when they have entered into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal agency, like CAISI, or when they’ve signed onto a parallel framework such as the EU’s AI Code of Practice (which we also signed).","pageRef":"para. 4","frames":[],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0032","actorId":"a16z","askId":"ask-developer-duty-of-care","documentId":"doc-a16z-sb1047-2024","date":"2024-06-19","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"The idea of imposing civil and criminal liability on model developers when downstream users do something bad is so misguided and such a dangerous precedent. First off, the bill requires developers to prove that their models can’t possibly be used for any of the defined hazardous capabilities.","pageRef":"Midha answer on civil and criminal liability provisions (Q&A)","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0033","actorId":"ca-governor","askId":"ask-developer-duty-of-care","documentId":"doc-newsom-sb1047-veto-2024","date":"2024-09-29","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it.","pageRef":"Governor's quoted veto statement ('Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047' block)","frames":[],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0034","actorId":"ca-governor","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-newsom-sb53-2025","date":"2025-09-29","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive. This legislation strikes that balance.","pageRef":"Governor's quoted statement (para. 3)","frames":["frame-innovation","frame-consumer-protection"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0035","actorId":"chamber-progress","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-chamber-progress-sb53-2025","date":"2025-07-09","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"This level of forced transparency goes beyond reasonable accountability and may discourage responsible companies from operating in California. It also creates opportunities for misuse by malicious actors who could exploit disclosed model weaknesses or mitigation gaps.","pageRef":"p. 2","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0036","actorId":"encode","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-encode-achievements-2026","date":"2026-07-21","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"Sponsored and passed SB 53, California’s landmark AI safety law. Helped pass the RAISE Act, New York’s landmark AI safety law.","pageRef":"Recent Campaign Achievements section (first two list items)","frames":[],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Mutable homepage; quote verified live 2026-07-21. docDate records access date."},{"id":"clm-0037","actorId":"netchoice","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-netchoice-raise-2025","date":"2025-06-18","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors. This bill would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression. NetChoice urges Governor Hochul to veto this misguided legislation and support a clear, national approach to AI governance","pageRef":"para. 3 (statement of Patrick Hedger, NetChoice Director of Policy)","frames":["frame-legal-certainty","frame-innovation","frame-patchwork"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0038","actorId":"netchoice","askId":"ask-narrow-state-highrisk","documentId":"doc-netchoice-traiga-2025","date":"2025-03-26","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"Finally, it would contributing to a growing state-by-state patchwork of AI laws that would stall innovation while the Trump administration is still working on fleshing out an America First approach to federal AI policy.","pageRef":"para. 4","frames":["frame-patchwork","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Document is testimony in opposition to TX HB 149 as introduced; stance coded relative to the ask (narrowing comprehensive state AI acts), which the testimony supports. Source's 'it would contributing' typo preserved."},{"id":"clm-0039","actorId":"ccia","askId":"ask-narrow-state-highrisk","documentId":"doc-ccia-colorado-2025","date":"2025-08-28","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"We appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to provide more time to work on the legislation passed last year that would have placed an immense burden on all businesses in Colorado. We welcome the opportunity to continue discussions with policymakers and stakeholders to find workable solutions for the businesses while also providing robust consumer protections.","pageRef":"para. 3","frames":["frame-consumer-protection"],"confidence":0.92,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Supports special-session delay bill SB25B-004, not the underlying SB 24-205."},{"id":"clm-0040","actorId":"sag-aftra","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-sagaftra-elvis-2024","date":"2024-01-11","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"If this legislation is approved, those protections would now include a performer's voice and likeness, making Tennessee the first state in the nation to preserve individual voice, image and likeness against irresponsible and unethical AI in the form of deep fakes and audio cloning.","pageRef":"para. 3","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0041","actorId":"tn-governor","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-tn-elvis-2024","date":"2024-03-21","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"While Tennessee’s preexisting law protected name, image, and likeness, it did not specifically address new, personalized generative AI cloning models and services that enable human impersonation and allow users to make unauthorized fake works in the image and voice of others.","pageRef":"para. 5","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0042","actorId":"ny-governor","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-hochul-raise-2025","date":"2025-12-19","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"By enacting the RAISE Act, New York is once again leading the nation in setting a strong and sensible standard for frontier AI safety, holding the biggest developers accountable for their safety and transparency protocols","pageRef":"Governor Hochul quoted statement","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0043","actorId":"nys-afl-cio","askId":"ask-worker-consultation","documentId":"doc-nysaflcio-loading-2024","date":"2024-10-21","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US-state","verbatim":"Rather, it addresses these risks by specifically requiring human oversight of high-risk systems, subjecting systems to comprehensive pre-deployment and biennial impact assessments, and protecting the critical role of trained workers in government decision-making.","pageRef":"middle section (LOADinG Act provisions)","frames":["frame-worker-protection","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Op-ed co-authored by NYS AFL-CIO President Mario Cilento and Sen. Kristen Gonzalez."},{"id":"clm-0044","actorId":"meta","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-meta-kaplan-cop-2025","date":"2025-07-18","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI. We have carefully reviewed the European Commission's Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and Meta won't be signing it. This Code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Speaker: Joel Kaplan, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Meta."},{"id":"clm-0045","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-openai-eu-cop-2025","date":"2025-07-11","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"Today, we’re announcing our intention to sign the EU’s Code of Practice for General Purpose AI—subject to the current version being formally approved by the AI Board during its upcoming adequacy assessment.","pageRef":"section 'The EU Code of Practice', para. 1","frames":[],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0046","actorId":"google","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-google-eu-cop-2025","date":"2025-07-30","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"We will join several other companies, including U.S. model providers, in signing the European Union’s General Purpose AI Code of Practice. We do so with the hope that this Code, as applied, will promote European citizens’ and businesses’ access to secure, first-rate AI tools as they become available.","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Signing announced with stated reservations on copyright departures, approvals, and trade-secret exposure."},{"id":"clm-0047","actorId":"anthropic","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-anthropic-eu-cop-2025","date":"2025-07-21","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"After review, Anthropic intends to sign the European Union's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. We believe the Code advances the principles of transparency, safety and accountability—values that have long been championed by Anthropic for frontier AI development.","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0048","actorId":"ccia","askId":"ask-frontier-transparency-mandates","documentId":"doc-ccia-gpai-code-2025","date":"2025-07-10","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"While the code’s safety and security measures have been streamlined for greater clarity, they remain overly prescriptive and disproportionate – for example, with respect to external evaluations. Furthermore, key measures in the final code still go beyond the AI Act’s agreed scope and objectives, subjecting potential signatories to burdensome requirements.","pageRef":"statement of Boniface de Champris, para. 3","frames":["frame-legal-certainty","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0049","actorId":"eu-ai-champions","askId":"ask-delay-highrisk-2027","documentId":"doc-aichampions-stopclock-2025","date":"2025-07-03","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"To address the uncertainty this situation is creating, we urge the Commission to propose a two-year “clock-stop” on the AI Act before key obligations enter into force, in order to allow both for reasonable implementation by companies, and for further simplification of the new rules.","pageRef":"Open Letter section, para. 7","frames":["frame-legal-certainty","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Open letter signed by 40+ European CEOs incl. Airbus, ASML, Mistral AI, Lufthansa, BNP Paribas, Philips, Mercedes-Benz."},{"id":"clm-0050","actorId":"ccia","askId":"ask-delay-highrisk-2027","documentId":"doc-ccia-pause-2025","date":"2025-06-26","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"A bold ‘stop-the-clock’ intervention is urgently needed to give AI developers and deployers legal certainty, as long as necessary standards remain unavailable or delayed.","pageRef":"para. 5","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0051","actorId":"ccia","askId":"ask-delay-highrisk-2027","documentId":"doc-ccia-omnibus-2025","date":"2025-11-19","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"The adjustments to the AI Act provide companies with more realistic timelines. Unfortunately, the Omnibus misses critical opportunities to raise the outdated compute threshold for identifying AI models which pose a ‘systemic risk’, and fails to fix problematic wording on the extraterritoriality of copyright provisions, which conflicts with EU and international principles.","pageRef":"para. 4","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0052","actorId":"digitaleurope","askId":"ask-delay-highrisk-2027","documentId":"doc-digitaleurope-pause-2026","date":"2026-02-16","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"DIGITALEUROPE urges co-legislators to formally request a separate proposal postponing the entry into application of the high-risk AI requirements, to be adopted under accelerated procedures. This would provide immediate legal certainty for companies and authorities, avoid a compliance cliff driven by missing standards and guidance, and remove the artificial time pressure currently distorting the legislative debate.","pageRef":"para. 4","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0053","actorId":"beuc","askId":"ask-eu-ai-liability-rules","documentId":"doc-beuc-aild-2025","date":"2025-04-07","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"The EU needs rules to address the legal gaps left by the AILD withdrawal and ensure a fairer, simpler path to compensation for all people affected by AI systems, including consumers in the EU, in case of harm by an AI system.","pageRef":"p. 1","frames":["frame-legal-certainty","frame-consumer-protection","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint letter with ARTICLE 19, ECNL, CDT Europe, Enforce and Mozilla."},{"id":"clm-0054","actorId":"eu-creative-sector-coalition","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-ccs-joint-statement-2025","date":"2025-07-30","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"We strongly reject any claim that the Code of Practice strikes a fair and workable balance or that the Template will deliver “sufficient” transparency about the majority of copyright works or other subject matter used to train GenAI models.","pageRef":"para. 9","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.88,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint statement of 40 European and international creative and cultural sector organisations incl. CISAC, IFPI, European Writers' Council, STM."},{"id":"clm-0055","actorId":"digitaleurope","askId":"ask-fm-transparency-baseline","documentId":"doc-digitaleurope-fighting-chance-2023","date":"2023-11-23","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"It is vital that we reduce this burden as much as possible, and let SMEs apply GPAI, foundation models and other new emerging AI technologies in their innovations. This is why we support recent moves by Member States to limit the scope for foundation models to transparency standards.","pageRef":"paras. 4-5","frames":["frame-small-business","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint statement with 30+ national digital industry associations, at AI Act trilogue stage (Nov 2023)."},{"id":"clm-0056","actorId":"algorithmwatch","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-algorithmwatch-omnibus-2026","date":"2026-06-18","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"Delaying safeguards is not a neutral administrative step. It delays accountability and extends the period in which people affected by AI systems lack the protections the AI Act was supposed to provide.","pageRef":"section 'Delayed safeguards mean delayed accountability'","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint analysis with eight partner organisations incl. EDRi, ARTICLE19, Access Now, Amnesty International, ECNL."},{"id":"clm-0057","actorId":"beuc","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-beuc-joint-letter-2025","date":"2025-07-09","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"We firmly oppose any attempt to delay or re-open the AI Act, particularly in light of the growing trend of deregulation, which risks undermining key accountability mechanisms and hard-won rights enshrined in EU law across a wide range of protections, including for people, the planet, justice and democracy.","pageRef":"p. 1","frames":["frame-accountability","frame-civil-rights"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint letter co-branded CDT Europe, EDRi, ECNL and BEUC with ~40 signatory organisations."},{"id":"clm-0058","actorId":"edri","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-edri-omnibus-2025","date":"2025-11-13","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"urge the European Commission to immediately halt any attempts to reopen the GDPR, ePrivacy framework, AI Act or other core digital rights protections","pageRef":"section 'Civil society and trade unions sound the alarm', para. 3","frames":["frame-civil-rights"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"EDRi-coordinated open letter from 133 civil society organisations and trade unions."},{"id":"clm-0059","actorId":"noyb","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-noyb-omnibus-2025","date":"2025-11-11","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"the legislative changes now contemplated go far beyond mere simplification. They would de-regulate core elements of the GDPR, the e-Privacy framework and AI Act, significantly reducing established protections","pageRef":"section 'Joint open letter to the Commission'","frames":["frame-civil-rights"],"confidence":0.65,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint open letter with EDRi and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties."},{"id":"clm-0060","actorId":"access-now","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-accessnow-art49-2026","date":"2026-02-10","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject the deletion of the Article 49(2) transparency safeguard for high-risk AI systems that is proposed in the AI Omnibus","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Letter coordinated by Access Now with 46 organisations and 7 experts."},{"id":"clm-0061","actorId":"amnesty-eu","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-amnesty-safeguard-2026","date":"2026-04-15","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"We therefore call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council to reject the AI Omnibus on grounds of procedure and substance, and thereby contribute towards ensuring a democratic process, as well as safeguarding fundamental rights protections","pageRef":"closing paragraph (call to action)","frames":["frame-civil-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.7,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Open letter signed by Amnesty International EIO plus 37 organisations."},{"id":"clm-0062","actorId":"beuc","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-beuc-omnibus-2026","date":"2026-05-07","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, regrets that the final AI omnibus adopted early this morning, aimed to simplify AI rules to boost competitiveness, instead creates a less safe digital environment for consumers as it delays key provisions in the AI Act and creates dangerous loopholes in the scope of the law.","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":["frame-consumer-protection"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"'Adopted early this morning' refers to the 7 May 2026 trilogue provisional deal, not final adoption."},{"id":"clm-0063","actorId":"corporate-europe-observatory","askId":"ask-hold-ai-act-timeline","documentId":"doc-ceo-lobby-2025","date":"2025-10-29","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"EU","verbatim":"Instead of beating the deregulation drum, the Commission should safeguard the public interest from Big Tech influence and strengthen the enforcement of its existing digital playbook instead.","pageRef":"section 'Deregulation wave strengthens tech monopolies, threatens digital rights', final para.","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.55,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Joint report with LobbyControl analysing EU Transparency Register data (EUR 151m/yr digital-industry lobbying)."},{"id":"clm-0064","actorId":"techuk","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-techuk-copyright-2025","date":"2025-02-26","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"techUK believes that Option 2 – the broad TDM exception – would provide the strongest competitive advantage for the UK's AI sector and create significant opportunities for economic growth and will be the preferred option of many.","pageRef":"section 'Finding a balanced path forward'","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0065","actorId":"techuk","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-techuk-dua-2025","date":"2025-05-21","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"Yesterday techUK wrote to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle MP to reiterate our position that the Data (Use and Access) Bill is the wrong legislative vehicle to address the complex issue of AI and copyright.","pageRef":"para. 1","frames":[],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0066","actorId":"google","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-google-uk-copyright-2025","date":"2025-02-25","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"We are clear in our view that the training of AI models is a non-expressive use of open web content, which boosts economic growth, fosters scientific advancement, and enables the creation of valuable new works.","pageRef":"p. 1","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0067","actorId":"openai","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-openai-uk-copyright-2025","date":"2025-04-02","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"We believe a broad text and data mining exception, as described in Option 2, is the most effective way to achieve the Government’s objectives to unlock and leverage the benefits of AI in the UK.","pageRef":"p. 2 (q. 4)","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Submitted via IPO survey 25 Feb 2025; summary published 2 Apr 2025 at the Commons SITC's request."},{"id":"clm-0068","actorId":"creative-rights-coalition","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-craic-statement-2024","date":"2024-12-16","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"Retaining the UK’s gold standard copyright protections - and ensuring the law is enforceable and respected in the face of the challenges posed by GAI - will create incentives for GAI developers to enter into licence agreements with rights holders, ensuring a steady flow of quality, human-authored works for GAI training.","pageRef":"Statement on Creative Rights in AI, para. 3","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0069","actorId":"nma","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-nma-uk-consultation-2024","date":"2024-12-17","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"The government’s consultation, along with its preferred policy option on AI and copyright, fails to address the real issue. The UK’s gold standard copyright law is already clear; what is missing is robust enforcement and transparency requirements that empower creative businesses to assert their rights.","pageRef":"statement, para. 1","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"News Media Association (UK); statement of chief executive Owen Meredith. Coded support relative to the transparency ask; the quoted sentence criticises the government's preferred opt-out option."},{"id":"clm-0070","actorId":"nma","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-nma-uk-update-2025","date":"2025-12-15","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"The Secretary of State must now definitively rule out any new copyright exception, bringing an end to the uncertainty created by this prolonged process over the past year. This will send a clear message to AI developers that they must enter into licensing agreements with the UK’s media and creative copyright owners","pageRef":"statement, para. 2","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0071","actorId":"publishers-association","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-publishers-assoc-2025","date":"2025-02-25","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"Big Tech needs to pay for the creative and research content they hoover up to train AI, just as they pay for their electricity and other normal costs of running a legally compliant business. We urgently need transparency regulations to lift the lid on AI usage","pageRef":"statement, para. 3","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Statement of CEO Dan Conway."},{"id":"clm-0072","actorId":"tuc","askId":"ask-worker-consultation","documentId":"doc-tuc-ai-bill-2024","date":"2024-04-18","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"High-risk decision-making shall not take place unless, at least one month before the high-risk decision-making takes place, the employer has taken into account the concerns and interests of workers or employees who are or may be affected by it.","pageRef":"p. 16 (s. 15(1))","frames":["frame-worker-protection"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Draft bill by Robin Allen KC and Dee Masters for the TUC."},{"id":"clm-0073","actorId":"equity","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-equity-personality-2026","date":"2026-07-21","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"Equity is calling on the government to introduce a new system of automatic rights over your voice, face and body for all. These ‘personality rights’ would allow everyone to have control over their identity in the age of AI. They would provide a new layer of protection for performers against exploitation by AI models without your consent.","pageRef":"section: The issue — 'Stop big tech firms taking your work!', para. 2","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Undated campaign page; docDate records access date (2026-07-21)."},{"id":"clm-0074","actorId":"ada-lovelace","askId":"ask-uk-binding-ai-law","documentId":"doc-ada-regulating-2023","date":"2023-07-18","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"New legislation, and more robust enforcement of existing laws, will be necessary to ensure foundation models are safe.","pageRef":"section: Regulating AI in the UK: our recommendations — Urgency, 'Legislation and enforcement'","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0075","actorId":"ada-lovelace","askId":"ask-uk-binding-ai-law","documentId":"doc-ada-ukbill-2025","date":"2025-08-29","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"A credible AI Bill must establish powers for government and regulators to define what ‘safe’ looks like. This includes setting safety standards, thresholds for acceptable risk and rules for how harms must be assessed and mitigated.","pageRef":"section: Five tests for an effective AI Bill — test 1","frames":["frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0076","actorId":"kidron","askId":"ask-training-transparency","documentId":"doc-hansard-dua-2025","date":"2025-06-11","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the Government chose once again to remove transparency provisions your Lordships provided, allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind.","pageRef":"Baroness Kidron speech, Motion A debate, para. 2","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-accountability"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0077","actorId":"techuk","askId":"ask-uk-binding-ai-law","documentId":"doc-techuk-whitepaper-2023","date":"2023-03-29","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"UK","verbatim":"techUK welcomes the much-anticipated publication of the UK’s AI White Paper and supports its plans for a context-specific, principle-based approach to governing AI that promotes innovation. The government must now prioritise building the necessary regulatory capacity, expertise, and coordination.","pageRef":"Sue Daley statement, end of article","frames":["frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Endorses the non-statutory, regulator-led approach; coded oppose relative to the binding-legislation ask."},{"id":"clm-0078","actorId":"google","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-google-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-13","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.","pageRef":"'Invest in AI' section","frames":["frame-patchwork"],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Same sentence carries both the fair-learning and preemption asks; recorded once per ask."},{"id":"clm-0079","actorId":"a16z","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-a16z-actionplan-2025","date":"2025-03-14","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"In addition, we urge the administration to clarify that existing copyright law protects the ability of developers to train models. Getting this right is critical to ensuring American competitiveness in AI.","pageRef":"sec. 2, 'Regulate harms, not AI model development'","frames":["frame-legal-certainty","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0080","actorId":"creative-commons","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-creative-commons-noi-2023","date":"2023-11-07","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"We believe that, in general, training generative AI constitutes fair use under current U.S. law. Using creative works to train generative AI fits with the long line of cases that has found that non-consumptive, technological uses of creative works in ways that are unrelated to the expressive content of those works are transformative fair uses","pageRef":"section 'AI training generally constitutes fair use'","frames":["frame-legal-certainty"],"confidence":0.9,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0081","actorId":"mpa","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-mpa-noi-2023","date":"2023-10-30","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"These cases demonstrate that the fair use defense enables courts to consider all the fair use factors and apply them in the context of specific facts. MPA submits that this type of inquiry is the appropriate way to deal with the many types of potential infringements that may arise under the broad umbrella of “training” a generative AI system.","pageRef":"p. 17","frames":[],"confidence":0.8,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Position is case-by-case fair-use analysis, opposing categorical treatment of training as fair use; also opposes new AI-specific copyright legislation."},{"id":"clm-0082","actorId":"authors-guild","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-authorsguild-part3-2025","date":"2025-05-19","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"The report presents thoughtful and balanced analysis of fair use in the context of AI training, emphasizing that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.","pageRef":"section: Fair Use Analysis, para. 1","frames":[],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0083","actorId":"nma","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-nma-ostp-rfi-2025","date":"2025-03-14","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"Specifically, the nation’s AI policy and AI Action Plan should respect intellectual property, support the development of voluntary licensing in free markets, and promote appropriate transparency and fair competition in the AI and technology sector.","pageRef":"p. 3","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.75,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"The filed RFI comments; doc-nma-actionplan-2025 is the accompanying press release."},{"id":"clm-0084","actorId":"copyright-alliance","askId":"ask-training-fair-use","documentId":"doc-copyrightalliance-part3-2025","date":"2025-05-29","stance":"oppose","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"In the report, the Copyright Office takes the sensible and correct approach that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.","pageRef":"para. 4 (introduction)","frames":[],"confidence":0.85,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0085","actorId":"riaa","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-riaa-nofakes-2025","date":"2025-04-09","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"this legislation that provides balanced and effective protections for all individuals against exploitative uses of their voice and likeness while supporting free speech, reducing litigation and achieving the promise of AI technology","pageRef":"Mitch Glazier statement, para. 5","frames":["frame-creator-rights","frame-legal-certainty","frame-innovation"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07"},{"id":"clm-0086","actorId":"sag-aftra","askId":"ask-likeness-consent","documentId":"doc-nofakes-hearing-2024","date":"2024-04-30","stance":"support","jurisdiction":"US","verbatim":"I'm here today to testify in support of the NO FAKES Act. Our members believe that AI technology, left unregulated, poses an existential threat to their ability to, one, require consent for the creative use of their digital representation.","pageRef":"Crabtree-Ireland opening statement","frames":["frame-creator-rights"],"confidence":0.95,"verification":"verified","extractor":"sweep-2026-07","note":"Speaker: Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director. Third-party verbatim transcript."}]}