17 July 2026 · LinkedIn
AI learned more from your Reddit answers and Wikipedia edits than from the authors now suing. And nobody is suing for you.
Every few weeks the copyright fight comes round again: the licensing deals, the lawsuits, the question of who gets paid when a model writes. It keeps trying to price individual contributions to something that only exists because of all of them together. And underneath it sits an answer nobody wants: the shares can't be traced. A model's output has no findable sources to point at; it reflects the whole accumulated record at once.
Think about what that record actually is.
It's the person who answered a stranger's question on Reddit at 2am, carefully, for nothing. The Wikipedia editor who gave a decade of Sunday afternoons to articles ten thousand people quietly relied on. The forum threads where mechanics diagnosed engines they'd never see. The recipe notes, the walkthroughs, the code on Stack Overflow with a patient explanation attached, the reviews that told you which tent survives rain.
None of those people hold a copyright worth suing over. Nearly all of them did it for the same reason: they'd learned something, and it seemed worth passing on. That instinct, multiplied across millions of ordinary people over decades, is most of what these models actually learned from. I'd argue it contributed more to what makes AI useful than the catalogues of the authors now leading the lawsuits. No disrespect to the authors; the point is scale.
And it goes deeper than the internet. Behind every article is a teacher who explained it to the writer once, and a library someone funded, and a language nobody owns. The record is layered generations thick. The people alive today are the heirs of everyone who wrote, taught, argued and explained their way to this point.
There's an older frame that fits all this far better than per-work licensing: the commons. Nobody can invoice for their slice because the value was never separable in the first place.
Follow that logic to its end and you land somewhere specific: the record is an inheritance. Inheritances pass whole; there is no itemised will. And the dividend owed on this one goes to the heirs, which is everyone. Thomas Paine made this argument about land in 1797. Herbert Simon made it about accumulated knowledge two centuries later, and put a number on it: the great bulk of what any of us earns rests on what we inherited together. AI makes the old argument literal. The machine is built from what we all built.
The licensing deals will keep coming, and creators whose work is identifiable should be paid for it. But as the mish-mash deepens, per-work attribution stops having an answer at all. The cheques will go to whoever had lawyers, while the Wikipedia editor gets nothing, and always will.
So perhaps the question worth asking isn't whose paragraph got used. It's what the society that wrote the corpus is owed.
Paine's answer was a dividend. I suspect it still is.
Join the conversation on LinkedIn →
← All writing