While generative AI introduces novel complexities, the fundamental conflict over artist compensation is not new. Historical examples, like musicians' families suing record labels over royalties, show these battles predate AI. AI's use of training data without permission has simply become the latest, most complex iteration of this long-standing issue.

Despite the massive OpenAI-Disney deal, there is no clarity on how licensing fees will flow down to the original creators of characters. This mirrors a long-standing Hollywood issue where creators under "work for hire" agreements see little upside from their creations, a problem AI licensing could exacerbate.

The US Copyright Office has ruled that art generated entirely by AI is not copyrightable because it lacks a human author. To gain legal protection, a creator must demonstrate significant human authorship and modification after the initial AI output, shifting the legal focus from the prompt to post-generation creative work.

The legal question of AI authorship has a historical parallel. Just as early photos were deemed copyrightable because of the photographer's judgment in composition and lighting, AI works can be copyrighted if a human provides detailed prompts, makes revisions, and exercises significant creative judgment. The AI is the tool, not the author.

A16Z's Justine Moore observes that in the nascent AI creator economy, the most reliable monetization strategy isn't ad revenue or brand deals. Instead, creators are finding success by teaching others how to use the complex new tools, selling courses and prompt guides to a massive audience eager to learn the craft.

To handle royalties for AI-generated music, platforms can analyze the final audio file to algorithmically determine the likely prompt (e.g., "Taylor Swift singing a Gunna song"). This allows for fair royalty splits between the referenced artists, creating a viable monetization path.

The creator economy's foundation is unstable because platforms don't pay sustainable wages, forcing creators into brand-deal dependency. This system is vulnerable to advertisers adopting stricter metrics and the rise of cheap AI content, which will squeeze creator earnings and threaten the viability of the creator "middle class."

The core legal battle is a referendum on "fair use" for the AI era. If AI summaries are deemed "transformative" (a new work), it's a win for AI platforms. If they're "derivative" (a repackaging), it could force widespread content licensing deals.

The financial system is unprepared for the coming wave of AI agents. These agents will perform tasks and require payment, creating trillions of micropayments. Current infrastructure from Stripe, Visa, or Mastercard cannot handle this volume, creating a massive opportunity for new protocols to facilitate the 'agent economy'.