AI Copyright, Social Media Restrictions, Filmmaking and New Ways to Get Paid
S.M.A.C.C. NEWS DESK | 12–13 October 2026
In this edition
- AI and copyright: More than 80 publishers unite to establish standards for licensing their content to AI companies. But what about independent creators?
- Social media and children: The Philippines advances restrictions while Türkiye introduces new rules affecting teenage creators.
- Platform accountability: Australia debates whether individuals should have stronger legal remedies against technology companies.
- AI filmmaking: An 83-minute science-fiction series reveals the real cost of producing television with artificial intelligence.
- Creator copyright: Independent Etsy designers report AI-generated imitations of their work.
- Creator monetisation: Substack explores sponsorship arrangements that allow businesses to pay for readers’ access to premium content.
- Privacy and recording: Bill Nighy’s reported encounter with a creator wearing camera-equipped glasses reignites the consent debate.
Big Media Wants AI to Pay — But Who Represents Independent Creators?
More than 80 publishing organisations across over 20 countries are now participating in the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights (SPUR) coalition.
The initiative is developing technical standards intended to help publishers identify when AI services use their material and support licensing arrangements.
This is potentially a major development.
For years, technology companies and content owners have argued about whether AI developers should obtain permission before using copyrighted material.
Now major publishers are trying to establish a practical system for measuring usage and negotiating payment.
But there is an important question.
What about independent creators?
A YouTuber with hundreds of original videos, a photographer with thousands of photographs or an independent journalist with years of published investigations may have valuable material online.
Yet they generally lack the commercial negotiating power of international publishing groups.
If AI licensing becomes a substantial new market, independent creators must not be forgotten.
S.M.A.C.C. asks: If your work helps create commercial value for AI companies, shouldn’t you have a say in how it is used?
Governments Are Redrawing the Rules for Young Social Media Users
Two countries are taking different approaches to restricting children’s access to social media.
In the Philippines, the House of Representatives has approved legislation proposing to prohibit social-media access for children under 13.
The Senate has supported a stricter proposal affecting users under 18.
Those proposals have not yet become a single enacted nationwide ban.
Meanwhile, Türkiye has published regulations scheduled to take effect on 1 November.
These include restrictions on access for children under 15 and additional safeguards for users aged 15–17, including private accounts and restrictions on livestreaming.
The intention is to protect young people from online harm.
But there are important questions about the effect on legitimate creative activity.
A teenager may use social media to learn filmmaking, publish music, share photography or develop digital skills.
Should the rules distinguish between passive consumption and active creativity?
And how should platforms verify age without unnecessarily collecting personal information?
These questions are becoming increasingly important as more governments consider similar restrictions.
Australia Challenges the Power of Social Media Companies
Australia is debating whether its proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation should give individuals stronger rights to pursue technology companies when those companies breach their obligations.
The Australian Greens are calling for stronger penalties and a private right of action.
This would represent a significant shift in the relationship between users and platforms.
Currently, major regulators are generally responsible for enforcing many platform safety obligations.
Allowing individuals to bring claims could provide additional accountability.
However, such proposals also raise questions about legal costs, proportionality and how responsibility should be allocated.
For creators, the wider issue is familiar.
Social media companies exercise enormous influence over people’s ability to communicate, publish and operate businesses.
What responsibilities should accompany that influence?
AI Filmmaking: 83 Minutes of Television Without Physical Sets
An independent production team behind the science-fiction series The Arc has disclosed details of producing approximately 83 minutes of AI-generated entertainment.
The filmmakers reported spending approximately $38,000 on AI-generation credits.
That figure did not represent the complete production budget, which also included human labour.
The production reportedly required multiple generations for individual shots, demonstrating that AI filmmaking is not necessarily as simple as entering a prompt and receiving a finished programme.
Human filmmakers remained responsible for developing the story, directing the production and selecting the final material.
The technology nevertheless creates possibilities for independent producers who could never afford elaborate locations, costumes or visual effects.
But it raises an interesting commercial question.
Does AI eliminate production costs, or simply move them from cameras, locations and performers to computing, software and post-production?
For independent filmmakers, understanding those economics will become increasingly important.
When AI Imitates an Independent Creator’s Work
An Australian investigation has highlighted complaints from Etsy sellers whose original designs have reportedly been imitated using AI.
One example involves crochet designer Lucy Cooper, who developed a distinctive beanie design and subsequently sold instructions for producing it.
She says an AI-generated imitation appeared on Etsy, accompanied by images and instructions that customers complained did not produce the advertised result.
The issue extends beyond one designer.
AI tools can make it easier to imitate visual designs and generate convincing product photographs.
However, there is an important legal distinction.
Copying an idea or style is not necessarily the same as infringing copyright in a protected work.
Misleading customers about a product is another matter.
For creators, the concern is that original development requires time, skill and investment, while imitation may become increasingly inexpensive.
Marketplaces will face growing pressure to distinguish legitimate AI-assisted creativity from misleading or infringing products.
Could Businesses Pay for Your Readers Instead of Advertising to Them?
Substack is exploring new sponsorship arrangements for independent publishers.
These include allowing businesses to sponsor access to premium content and potentially fund subscriptions for readers.
The commercial idea is interesting.
Instead of paying to interrupt an audience with advertising, a sponsor helps pay for the content the audience wants to consume.
That could provide independent publishers with another source of revenue.
But it also creates an editorial challenge.
Can a publisher remain genuinely independent when a company is paying to make its content available?
Sponsorship disclosure, editorial independence and transparency will be essential.
For creators, the broader opportunity is the continued development of income sources beyond conventional platform advertising.
Smart Glasses: Just Because You Can Record Someone, Should You?
British actor Bill Nighy has reportedly expressed discomfort following an encounter with a YouTube creator wearing Meta camera-equipped glasses.
The creator says his intentions were positive and that he explained the recording afterwards.
The account attributed to Nighy’s side suggests the experience was unwelcome.
The incident illustrates a problem we have previously examined at S.M.A.C.C.
Modern recording technology can capture interactions without the obvious presence of a handheld camera.
In Britain, filming somebody in a public place is not automatically unlawful.
But legality is only one consideration.
Privacy, consent, harassment and the subsequent publication of recordings may all become relevant.
The ability to record an interaction does not automatically make publishing it responsible.
As recording technology becomes less visible, creators may need to think more carefully about the people who unexpectedly become part of their content.
The Bigger Picture: Power, Ownership and Responsibility
These seven developments may appear unrelated.
But they are connected by three fundamental questions.
Who owns the content?
Publishers want compensation when AI companies use their material. Independent designers want protection against imitation.
Who controls access to audiences?
Governments are restricting how young people use social media, while technology companies continue to control the systems distributing content.
Who receives the commercial benefits?
AI is changing filmmaking economics, and publishing platforms are developing new sponsorship arrangements.
Meanwhile, increasingly discreet recording technology raises questions about the rights of people appearing in creators’ work.
The creator economy is becoming a major international industry.
But its future cannot be determined solely by governments, large technology companies and major publishers.
Independent creators need a voice in the decisions shaping their work, their audiences and their livelihoods.
Sources and further reading
- SPUR — Standards for Publisher Usage Rights
- ABC Australia
- The Guardian Australia
- Reuters
- Business Insider
- Etsy Seller Policy
- Substack
About S.M.A.C.C.
S.M.A.C.C. — Social Media and Content Creators Community
An independent community examining the developments affecting people who create, publish and build businesses through digital media.
We cover social-media platforms, artificial intelligence, copyright, creator monetisation, filmmaking, photography, regulation and creator rights.
Website: https://www.smac.pro
Editorial disclaimer
S.M.A.C.C. provides independent news commentary and analysis for information and discussion. Allegations are identified as such, and proposed legislation is distinguished from law already in force. Views and analysis do not constitute legal or professional advice.
Mentions
@YouTube @Meta @TikTok @Substack @Etsy @Business Insider @Reuters @ABC Australia
Hashtags
#SMACC #CreatorEconomy #ContentCreators #SocialMediaNews #ArtificialIntelligence #CreatorRights #Copyright #AIFilmmaking #DigitalMedia #SocialMedia #ContentCreation #OnlineSafety #CreatorMonetisation #Privacy #Filmmaking
