What the White House AI content licensing plan means for creators

President Trump has sought to make AI one of the cornerstones of his domestic policy. After a series of executive orders (which we’ve covered here and here), his administration has unveiled a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence that makes a series of recommendations to Congress regarding the future shape of AI regulation in the US.

However, these recommendations are light on detail. For example, Congress is told it should “streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation so AI developers can develop or procure on-site and behind-the-meter power generation to accelerate AI infrastructure buildout and enhance grid reliability,” but there’s no indication of what a streamlined permitting process might look like in practice. Ultimately, legislators will have to decide how to translate the White House’s recommendations into concrete legislative proposals.  

How the framework could impact creators

For content creators, the most eye-catching language sits in the third section about intellectual property and digital replicas. The White House says creators, publishers, and innovators should be protected from AI-generated outputs that infringe protected content “without undermining lawful innovation and free expression.” It also urges Congress to consider creating licensing frameworks or collective rights systems so that individual rights holders can collectively negotiate compensation from AI developers. 

But the White House’s recommendation comes with a huge caveat: Legislation in this sphere “should not address when or whether such licensing is required.” If AI developers aren’t compelled to engage with this bargaining regime, many may choose to ignore it. Why jump through extra hoops if they can obtain content through other avenues? The whole system could end up being a paper tiger. 

A hands-off approach

The Trump administration is adamant that Congress shouldn’t create any new regulatory bodies to police AI. Instead, it favors “sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies with subject matter expertise and through industry-led standards.”

At the same time, the framework takes a dim view of state efforts to regulate AI, urging Congress to “preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a

minimally burdensome national standard consistent with these recommendations,

not fifty discordant ones.” If implemented, this would effectively prevent states from passing their own, more onerous AI regulations.

Split reactions

Some parts of the entertainment world have reacted favorably to these provisions. SAG-AFTRA said it supports the framework, saying that “[o]ur members’ performances, voices and likenesses are not raw material to be used without consent; they are the product of human talent and labor, and they deserve protection.” 

However, others have been less sanguine. Matthew Urwin of Built In argues that the White House’s preferred light-touch approach may sit uneasily with a public that is increasingly wary of the dangers posed by AI. 

Sydney Saubestre of Tech Policy Press is even more blunt. She argues that the framework “leaves most vulnerable exposed,” especially because of its preemption provisions. They could have an outsized impact by limiting how far states can go in addressing AI harms. That criticism matters because the White House is not merely calling for national consistency in the abstract; it is specifically recommending that Congress preempt state AI laws that run afoul of its preferred approach.

Future conflict between the federal government and the states is virtually certain. While the Trump administration pivots away from ‘burdensome’ regulation, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom has signed an executive order giving the state four months to develop AI policies that prioritize public safety. 

An uncertain future

Given that the ball is now in Congress’s court, it remains to be seen how impactful this framework will be. Theoretically, it could help creators receive proper compensation for the use of their work by AI, but if this licensing regime isn’t backed up by penalties for non-compliance, it could prove to be pointless.

And although the White House warns against the danger of a patchwork approach to regulation, its embrace of sector-specific AI applications could lead to that very outcome. Meanwhile, states like California are unlikely to shy away from their own regulatory efforts. As a result, the balance of regulatory power will likely have to be decided in the courts. Despite this framework, the present uncertainties surrounding AI are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

‍