AI Disruption Could Reduce Creator Earnings by Nearly 25% by 2028, UNESCO Warns
Key Takeaways
- UNESCO warns that AI-generated content could cause revenue losses of up to 24% for music creators and 21% for audiovisual creators by 2028.
- Creators increasingly rely on digital revenue, which now accounts for 35% of their income compared to 17% in 2018.
- Legal frameworks like fair use are under pressure as AI technologies scale, complicating copyright protections.
- There’s a significant digital skills gap between developed and developing countries, impacting creators’ ability to compete.
- Ongoing legal battles involve AI firms facing copyright lawsuits, highlighting tensions in AI system development and content use.
WEEX Crypto News, 2026-02-19 09:43:01
AI’s Emerging Impact on the Creative Economy
In recent years, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered a series of transformations across various sectors. Among those deeply influenced by these advancements is the creative economy, which UNESCO’s latest Re|Shaping Policies for Creativity report scrutinized. This comprehensive study draws insights from over 120 nations and highlights a potentially alarming forecast: AI-generated outputs could result in revenue losses ranging from 21% to 24% for creators in the music and audiovisual sectors by 2028.
The crux of this potential upheaval lies in the burgeoning capabilities of generative AI. As these systems increasingly produce content that parallels human creations, they are setting a new competitive stage. These AI creations can now closely mimic, if not replicate, various forms of creative outputs, thus challenging the traditional creators’ market share and altering the landscape of creativity.
The Growing Reliance on Digital Revenues
The reliance on digital channels has markedly surged among creators today. Based on UNESCO’s findings, digital revenues now comprise an impressive 35% of creators’ income, a significant uptick from 17% in 2018. This shift underscores a dual reality: while the digital domain presents vast earning opportunities, it also comes fraught with instability, primarily due to the ever-present threat of intellectual property (IP) infringements and the unchecked power of digital platforms. Such challenges push lesser-known artists further to the fringes, making them more vulnerable.
Ishita Sharma, a legal expert from Fathom Legal, stresses that the urgency now lies in recalibrating the copyright frameworks to address the “distributive imbalance” posed by AI systems. She elucidates the necessity for proactive measures to ensure that creators are adequately compensated when AI utilizes their works “at scale” without fair compensation.
Legal Complexities: ©opyright vs. AI
At the heart of the friction between AI advancements and creative protections is the legal doctrine of fair use. Historically, these doctrines were crafted to assess specific, transformative human uses. However, the sheer magnitude of AI’s processing and replication capabilities poses unique challenges to these doctrines.
Sharma notes the complications that arise even when AI training is considered transformative. This transformation is particularly contentious when AI creations start substituting original works, rendering existing legal frameworks insufficient and often favoring larger tech firms. These complexities reiterate the need for legal adaptations to better tackle these modern challenges.
Moreover, the UNESCO report highlights additional structural gaps contributing to potential revenue losses. A glaring disparity exists in digital skills proficiency—67% in developed countries versus a mere 28% in developing nations. This gap underscores the limited national capacity to gauge and leverage digital cultural consumption, directly affecting creators’ competitiveness.
For creators whose unique style or voice becomes digitally cloned, existing remedies are fragmented. Copyright laws primarily defend distinct expressions rather than defining elements like “style.” This opens a broader debate on the need for clearer, remuneration-driven protections.
Legal Showdowns: Creativity Meets AI in Court
The legal battles are intensifying as AI’s role in creation deepens, leading to significant disputes over copyright violations. Notably, organizations like OpenAI face growing lawsuits from authors and publishers. They allege that AI firms engage in unauthorized book downloads and utilize these materials to train their systems, thus infringing upon copyright laws. A significant development in this arena saw a New York court allowing pivotal infringement claims to proceed, amplifying the conversation around AI’s impact on traditional copyrights.
Further complicating matters, giants like Google face similar allegations. Accusations have arisen that its Gemini AI was trained using unapproved book copies. However, in a twist, tech firms like Meta and Anthropic have recently secured partial fair use victories in similar legal contexts, underscoring the nuanced and evolving legal discourse surrounding AI’s role.
In Hollywood, the discourse takes on a collective voice. More than 500 creators from the entertainment industry have rallied behind the Creators Coalition on AI. They are championing for robust standards to regulate AI system training and ensure fair compensation for creators whose works AI systems use.
AI Adaptation: Embracing the Change or Resisting it?
As the challenges around AI mount, parts of the tech world opt for adaptation rather than resistance. Case in point, Google.org has pledged a $2 million investment towards the Sundance Institute. This initiative is designed to empower over 100,000 artists with essential AI skills, positing AI literacy as an indispensable skill set in today’s creative landscape.
The overarching question remains: who truly benefits from AI’s relentless expansion? As legal proceedings continue to unfold, it’s evident that industries and institutions must navigate a fine line between innovation and protection to ensure these advanced technologies are harnessed ethically and constructively.
The Future of Creative Economy in an AI-Pervasive World
As AI technologies evolve, the creative economy is at a crucial intersection. The potential for AI to reshape the industry could either be a boon or a bane, depending on how frameworks adjust and how creators adapt.
The surge in digital revenue signifies a bright spot amidst the challenges. But with great power comes great responsibility, especially for legal systems that must rapidly adapt to the changing technological landscape.
The blend of creative expressions with advanced technologies heralds a future rich with potential but also dotted with uncertainties. By fostering dialogue, adjustments, and proactive measures, the creative ecosystem can hope to harmonize man and machine in value creation.
FAQ
How is AI impacting the earnings of creators?
AI is increasingly creating content that mimics human creativity, posing a competitive threat to traditional creators. According to UNESCO, AI could lead to up to 24% revenue loss for music creators and 21% for audiovisual creators by 2028.
Why are digital revenues now crucial for creators?
Digital platforms have become significant revenue streams for creators. According to UNESCO, digital channels account for 35% of creators’ income, highlighting their growing importance despite associated challenges like IP infringements.
What are the legal challenges associated with AI and copyright?
Traditional copyright doctrines, like fair use, face challenges in managing AI’s scale and breadth. Since AI can ingest and replicate vast copyrighted materials, existing laws might not sufficiently protect original creators, often placing them at a disadvantage compared to large tech firms.
How can creators protect their unique style from being replicated by AI?
Current copyright laws mainly protect specific expressions rather than styles or voices. This challenge underscores the demand for clearer and more focused remuneration protections to ensure that creators receive fair compensation for the use of their unique creative elements by AI tools.
What steps are being taken to adapt creators to AI?
Adapting to AI involves investment in education and skills development. Initiatives like Google.org’s investment in AI skills for artists aim to integrate AI literacy as an essential skill, thereby positioning creators to leverage AI rather than be overshadowed by it.
You may also like
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.