More than 100 public figures and AI experts are calling for a boycott of generative AI tools, arguing the technology is reshaping creative work while sidestepping core questions about copyright and creators’ rights.
The group—described as exceeding 100 signatories—explicitly urges users and creators to stop using generative AI systems. The appeal lands as legal and ethical fights over AI intensify, particularly over whether companies can train models on copyrighted works without permission or payment.
Creators challenge how generative AI is trained
At the center of the dispute is the way generative AI models learn. These systems are trained by ingesting massive amounts of text, music, and visual material from the web, including works protected by copyright.
For artists, writers, and musicians, the practice raises a basic question: Can protected creative work be used to build a commercial technology without consent or compensation?
That question is already playing out in court. The article notes that several lawsuits have been filed against AI developers, including in the United States, where authors accuse model makers of copyright infringement. Those cases are helping fuel the current push and, supporters argue, strengthen the case for a boycott.
A boycott push in a fragmented response to AI’s spread
The boycott call is one piece of a broader, uneven backlash to the rapid mainstreaming of generative AI. Some parts of the creative economy have tried negotiating directly with AI companies for compensation or more control over how their work is used.
Other industries, including the audiovisual sector, have pursued legislative approaches aimed at setting guardrails for the technology.
Still, the article cautions that the real-world impact of a boycott is uncertain. Generative AI is already embedded in millions of everyday uses—from productivity tools to content platforms—and persuading people to abandon it would require a far larger collective effort than current appeals.
Regulation and the legal road ahead
Alongside the boycott effort, regulatory frameworks are shifting. The European Union, through its AI Act, is gradually imposing transparency obligations related to training data—rules that could force developers to better document their sources and potentially create compensation mechanisms.
In that sense, the call from more than 100 signatories is not happening in isolation. It reflects a wider moment in which creators, regulators, and companies are renegotiating how creative data can be used in the AI era. As the article frames it, the issue is no longer just technical or commercial—it has become political.
Frequently asked questions
How many people signed the boycott call? More than 100 people signed the call to boycott generative AI, according to the article.
What is the main criticism of generative AI models? The central complaint is that these models are trained on copyrighted content without creators’ consent or compensation.
What kinds of content are used to train generative AI? The models ingest large amounts of text, music, and visual data from the web, including copyrighted works.
Have lawsuits already been filed against AI developers? Yes. The article says several lawsuits have been launched in the United States, where authors accuse model creators of copyright violations.
Who is most affected? Artists, writers, and musicians are described as most impacted because protected works are used to develop AI technologies without their permission.
