Vue normale

First US Newsroom Strike For AI Protections Staged by ProPublica's Journalists

11 avril 2026 à 18:34
It's the first time a major U.S. newsroom has gone on strike partly to demand protections from AI-related layoffs, according to a report from Nieman Lab. They noted that one of the picketer's signs read "Thoughts not bots," : On Wednesday, roughly 150 members of the Propublica Guild, one of the largest nonprofit newsroom unions in the country, went on a 24-hour strike. About two dozen Guild members picketed ProPublica's headquarters in New York City's Hudson Square neighborhood during working hours, as simultaneous picket lines formed in front of the publication's offices in Chicago and Washington D.C... The Guild has been negotiating its first collective bargaining agreement for two and a half years, and the one-day action was intended to put new pressure on ProPublica's management to agree to several contract proposals. The union is seeking "just cause" protections for terminations, wage increases to keep up with the rising cost of living, and contract language that would prohibit layoffs resulting from AI adoption... Beyond the strike, the ProPublica Guild has also taken its dispute over newsroom AI adoption to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On Monday, the Guild filed an unfair-labor-practice charge, citing a "unilateral implementation of AI policy." The filing claims that ProPublica published AI editorial guidelines on its website last month, without first bargaining with union members over its tenets and language... A petition launched Wednesday calling for ProPublica to agree to the Guild's contract terms had received roughly 4,200 signatures by Thursday morning... Susan DeCarava, the president of The NewsGuild of New York, joined strikers in front of the ProPublica offices yesterday. During a spare moment on the picket line, she told me that while this strike may be setting precedent for her union, it likely won't be the last over AI adoption in newsrooms. "We're going to see more and more concentrated conflicts between media bosses and journalists and media workers over who has a say and how AI is used in their workplaces," she said. For one, The New York Times Guild is currently in contract negotiations after its last agreement expired in February. Already, AI language has taken center stage in the Guild's initial bargaining sessions, including over a proposal that would see Guild members receive a share of the revenue earned when their work is licensed for AI training. "Management has offered expanded severance for AI-related layoffs as a counter proposal..." according to the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

AV1's Open, Royalty-Free Promise In Question As Dolby Sues Snapchat Over Codec

Par : BeauHD
28 mars 2026 à 03:30
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AOMedia Video 1 (AV1) was invented by a group of technology companies to be an open, royalty-free alternative to other video codecs, like HEVC/H.265. But a lawsuit that Dolby Laboratories Inc. filed this week against Snap Inc. calls all that into question with claims of patent infringement. Numerous lawsuits are currently open in the US regarding the use of HEVC. Relevant patent holders, such as Nokia and InterDigital, have sued numerous hardware vendors and streaming service providers in pursuit of licensing fees for the use of patented technologies deemed essential to HEVC. It's a touch rarer to see a lawsuit filed over the implementation of AV1. The Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia), whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Netflix, says it developed AV1 "under a royalty-free patent policy (Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0)" and that the standard is "supported by high-quality reference implementations under a simple, permissive license (BSD 3-Clause Clear License)." Yet, Dolby's lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware [PDF] alleges that AV1 leverages technologies that Dolby has patented and has not agreed to license for free and without receiving royalties. The filing reads: "[AOMedia] does not own all patents practiced by implementations of the AV1 codec. Rather, the AV1 specification was developed after many foundational video coding patents had already been filed, and AV1 incorporates technologies that are also present in HEVC. Those technologies are subject to existing third-party patent rights and associated licensing obligations." Dolby is seeking a jury trial, a declaration that Dolby isn't obligated to license the patents in questions under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations, and for the court to enjoin Snap from further "infringement."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Les 6 raisons pour lesquelles Wikipédia rejette l’écriture d’articles avec IA, sauf dans deux cas particuliers

27 mars 2026 à 14:43

L'encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia n'ignore pas l'explosion des textes produits par les systèmes d'IA générative. Pour l'essentiel, leur usage pour écrire des articles est prohibé. Mais à la marge, il y a quelques exceptions tolérées.

Écrire sur Wikipédia avec l’IA, c’est non, sauf dans deux cas de figure très spécifiques

27 mars 2026 à 12:43

L'encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia n'ignore pas l'explosion des textes produits par les systèmes d'IA générative. Pour l'essentiel, leur usage pour écrire des articles est prohibé. Mais à la marge, il y a quelques exceptions tolérées.

Should Banksy Remain Anonymous?

15 mars 2026 à 16:34
He's "the most famous anonymous man in the world," suggests Reuters. But investigating Banksy's artworks in a bombed Ukrainian village (and other clues in the U.K. and Manhattan) have led them to "a hand-written confession by the artist to a long-ago misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct — a document that revealed, beyond dispute, Banksy's true identity." But Banksy's long-time lawyer "urged us not to publish this report, saying doing so would violate the artist's privacy, interfere with his art and put him in danger" and "would harm the public, too." Working "anonymously or under a pseudonym serves vital societal interests," he wrote. "It protects freedom of expression by allowing creators to speak truth to power without fear of retaliation, censorship or persecution — particularly when addressing sensitive issues such as politics, religion or social justice." Reuters took into account Banksy's privacy claims — and the fact that many of his fans wish for him to remain anonymous. Yet we concluded that the public has a deep interest in understanding the identity and career of a figure with his profound and enduring influence on culture, the art industry and international political discourse... As for the risk he might face of retaliation or censorship, Britain's legal and political establishments seem comfortable with Banksy's messages and how he delivers them... His mastery of disguise began as a way of shaking the police, says former manager [Steve] Lazarides. In an interview, Lazarides said anonymity served a practical purpose in Bristol, where authorities enforced "draconian" policies against graffiti... Eventually, keeping the secret became a burden. By the end of their partnership, Lazarides estimates he spent half or more of his time managing and maintaining the artist's mystique. "I think it became a good gag, and then, if you want my honest, honest opinion, I think it then became a disease," he said. Lazarides wrote a two-volume book about managing Banksy from the late 1990s to 2008, including a story about Banksy's arrest in 2000 for this defacing of a billboard. Reuters geolocated that building, then found police documents and a court file including the hand-written confession. This investigation spawned a 7,000-word article with everything from a comic strip Banksy drew when he was 11 to his connections with Robert Del Naja of the trip hop band Massive Attack — and a 2017 podcast interview where a music producer apparently revealed Banksy's real first name. But the article also reveals how protective the art community is of Banksy's secret. Reuters investigated that Banksy auctioned in 2018 for $1.4 million — and then immediately started shredding itself with a device Banksy embedded in its frame: That piece, renamed "Love is in the Bin," sold three years later for about $25 million. Art dealer [Robert] Casterline was at the auction and remembers when the shredder began to beep. He pulled out his phone to take pictures. "Unfortunately, there was one person standing in front of me," blocking the view, he said. It was an eccentric-looking man with a broad neck scarf and thick eyewear. Oddly, the man wasn't watching the painting get shredded. He was looking in the other direction, observing the crowd's reaction. Only later, reviewing what he shot, did Casterline notice that the man's glasses appeared to have a small camera built into the bridge. (Banksy later posted a video of the stunt, including shots of the astonished audience.) Having seen a photo of the man suspected of being Banksy, Casterline confirmed to Reuters that he was "pretty sure" it was the same man. But "I don't want to be the guy who exposes Banksy."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Le jour où Wikipédia s’est « auto-piratée » et a causé la paralysie de l’encyclopédie pendant des heures

6 mars 2026 à 14:58

Wikipédia a clairement connu de meilleurs jeudis. Le 5 mars 2026, le projet encyclopédique a été soudainement figé en mode « lecture seule » pendant quelques heures. Derrière cette paralysie ne se cache pas un redoutable groupe de pirates informatiques, mais une équipe de Wikimédia réalisant un test de sécurité.

Le jour où Wikipédia s’est « auto-piratée » et a causé la paralysie de l’encyclopédie pendant des heures

6 mars 2026 à 12:31

Wikipédia a clairement connu de meilleurs jeudis. Le 5 mars 2026, le projet encyclopédique a été soudainement figé en mode « lecture seule » pendant quelques heures. Derrière cette paralysie ne se cache pas un redoutable groupe de pirates informatiques, mais une équipe de Wikimédia réalisant un test de sécurité.

Le jour où Wikipédia s’est « auto-piratée » et a causé la paralysie de l’encyclopédie pendant des heures

6 mars 2026 à 09:52

Wikipédia a clairement connu de meilleurs jeudis. Le 5 mars 2026, le projet encyclopédique a été soudainement figé en mode « lecture seule » pendant quelques heures. Derrière cette paralysie ne se cache pas un redoutable groupe de pirates informatiques, mais une équipe de Wikimédia réalisant un test de sécurité.

❌