A fundamental question is shaking the foundations of Canadian journalism: who benefits when artificial intelligence devours news content? Culture Minister Marc Miller has signaled a looming confrontation with AI companies, asserting that the unchecked use of news undermines its very purpose.
The core of the issue isn’t simply about access to information, but about value extraction. A recent report from McGill University revealed a startling reality – when questioned about Canadian news events, AI platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude failed to credit the original sources a staggering 82% of the time.
This isn’t mere oversight; it’s a systematic pattern. Researchers found AI systems are actively mining journalism at every stage – from absorbing archives for training to generating derivative content and ultimately delivering answers that bypass the need to visit the original news outlet.
The consequence, according to the report, is a dangerous acceleration of the economic decline of the journalism these AI systems rely upon. News organizations are effectively fueling their own obsolescence by providing the raw material for their competitors.
Miller’s stance is clear: those who utilize proprietary material must compensate its creators. He indicated the government is prepared to extend this principle to AI companies, framing it not as a legislative overhaul, but as a matter of responsible conduct and fair payment.
This debate unfolds against the backdrop of the Online News Act, designed to compel platforms like Meta and Google to compensate media outlets. While Google has begun making payments, Meta responded by removing news content altogether, highlighting the high stakes involved.
A coalition of major Canadian news organizations – including Postmedia, The Canadian Press, and CBC/Radio-Canada – have already launched a legal challenge against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement and unauthorized profit from their content. The lawsuit argues that training AI models on news articles without permission is a clear violation of intellectual property rights.
The distinction between social media and AI’s impact on journalism is becoming increasingly critical. Social media platforms once captured advertising revenue by attracting audiences to news; AI, however, is absorbing the substance of journalism itself, delivering it directly to consumers as its own product.
This fundamentally alters the relationship between news and audience, rendering the original source almost irrelevant. The AI’s response becomes the end of the line, eliminating the incentive to seek out the reporting that made it possible.
While comprehensive copyright reform is a complex, multi-year undertaking, Miller emphasized that existing laws should and do protect creators. The government believes proper compensation for the use of intellectual property is not negotiable, and is actively exploring avenues to ensure AI companies adhere to this principle.
The debate isn’t simply about money; it’s about the future of informed citizenship. If journalism is systematically devalued and defunded, the consequences for a healthy democracy could be profound.
