A single unreleased AI model has triggered emergency regulatory mobilization on both sides of the Atlantic. UK financial regulators are holding urgent talks with the government’s cybersecurity agency and major banks to assess risks posed by Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview — days after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell convened an emergency meeting with Wall Street’s top CEOs over the same concerns.

In the UK, officials from the Bank of England, Financial Conduct Authority, and Treasury are in talks with the National Cyber Security Centre. Representatives from major British banks, insurers, and exchanges are expected to be briefed on cybersecurity risks at a meeting with regulators within the next two weeks, according to Reuters. The BoE, FCA, and NCSC all declined to comment.

The US response was more public. White House national economic adviser Kevin Hassett confirmed on Fox News that Bessent and Powell had convened bank chiefs — including the CEOs of Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs — to warn of cyber risks from the model. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was unable to attend. The urgency of the meeting reflected the capabilities Mythos Preview has demonstrated in controlled testing: the ability to identify and exploit weaknesses across every major operating system and every major web browser.

Anthropic has stopped short of a broad release, citing concerns the model could expose previously unknown cybersecurity vulnerabilities at scale. The company has been navigating an increasingly complex relationship with the broader tech and media ecosystem as its models grow more capable.

What Mythos Preview is — and who can use it

Despite not being publicly available, Claude Mythos Preview is already in active use — under strict controls. Under a program Anthropic calls Project Glasswing, select organizations have been granted access to the model for defensive cybersecurity work. Partners include Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Nvidia, CrowdStrike, and Palo Alto Networks. Access has since been extended to approximately 40 additional organizations responsible for critical software infrastructure.

Anthropic says Mythos Preview has already found “thousands” of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers, and other software. The company has committed up to $100 million in usage credits and $4 million in donations to open-source security groups as part of the program.

The framing is defensive. But the same capability that finds vulnerabilities can, by definition, be turned toward exploiting them — which is precisely what regulators appear to be stress-testing.

Why regulators are moving fast

The simultaneous and independent responses from UK and US financial regulators signal that Mythos Preview represents a qualitatively different kind of AI risk than those regulators have previously had to assess. Prior AI regulatory concerns have centered on bias, misinformation, and systemic market risks — as seen in ongoing debates around AI copyright policy and AI use certification. A model with demonstrated offensive capability against critical software infrastructure — in active use, even in a restricted form — is a different category of problem.

It is also a compressed timeline problem. The model exists. It is being used. The regulatory frameworks to manage it are still being assembled.

All three UK agencies — the BoE, FCA, and NCSC — declined to comment on the talks. Anthropic had not responded to a request for comment at the time of the Reuters report.

The post UK and US financial regulators hold emergency meetings over Anthropic’s Claude Mythos appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The Associated Press, founded in the mid-1800s to help New York newspapers share reporting costs, is offering buyouts to an unspecified number of U.S.-based journalists — the latest move in a long-running transformation from wire service to technology data company.

The News Media Guild, which represents AP journalists, said more than 120 staff members received buyout offers on Monday. AP executive editor and senior vice president Julie Pace said the goal is to reduce global headcount by less than 5%, though she acknowledged the cut among U.S. staff would likely exceed that figure depending on how many people accept.

“We’re not a newspaper company and we haven’t been for quite some time,” Pace said.

The numbers back her up. Over the past four years, AP’s newspaper revenue has fallen 25%. Big newspaper publishers, once the organization’s financial foundation, now account for just 10% of income. Gannett and McClatchy both dropped AP in 2024. Lee Enterprises — publisher of The Buffalo News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch — is now seeking an early exit from a contract due to expire at the end of 2026.

Where the growth is coming from

While the newspaper business contracts, AP’s technology revenue has grown 200% over the same four-year period. Kristin Heitmann, senior vice president and chief revenue officer, put it plainly: “If you can think of a large technology company, they are a customer of ours.”

AP was among the first news organizations to move aggressively into AI deals, agreeing in 2023 to lease part of its text archive to OpenAI. It has since launched on Snowflake Marketplace to license data directly to enterprises, stood up AP Intelligence to sell data to financial and advertising sectors, and last year secured a deal with Google to deliver news through the Gemini chatbot — Google’s first content deal with a news publisher.

Elections data is another growth vector. AP saw a 30% increase in election data customers between the 2020 and 2024 cycles, and last month agreed to sell U.S. elections data to Kalshi, the world’s largest predictions market. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all signed on to the AP elections service last year.

What the restructuring looks like

Beyond the headcount reduction, AP is doubling down on video — it has already doubled the number of U.S. video journalists since 2022 — and deploying rapid-response teams that contribute to major stories regardless of geographic base. The organization says it will maintain a presence in all 50 states.

The union is pushing back. In a statement, the News Media Guild said AP “refuses to offer [staff] appropriate training and tools” and is “flirting with artificial intelligence — ignoring the opportunity to differentiate AP news stories as ones that are and always will be created by human journalists.” The union also said AP declined a request last week to bargain over AI use.

AP did not immediately comment on either claim.

Pace framed the restructuring as a strategic choice made from stability, not distress. “The AP is not in trouble,” she said. “We’re making these changes from a position of strength.”

The post AP offers buyouts as AI and tech companies now drive revenue growth appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The Trump administration released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence on March 20 — a four-page document that tells Congress what the White House wants federal AI law to look like, and signals clearly what it doesn't want: state-level regulation, a new federal AI agency, or courts deciding that AI training violates copyright law.

The framework isn't binding. It's a legislative wish list that still needs Congress to act. But it maps the administration's priorities across seven areas, and for publishers and media companies, two of them matter most.

On intellectual property, the White House punts to the courts while tipping its hand. The document states the administration "believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws" — then says it supports judicial resolution. That's a tell. For publishers currently suing OpenAI, Google, and others over training data — including Encyclopedia Britannica's recent suit against OpenAI and News Corp's ongoing case against Perplexity — the administration has effectively signaled it's rooting against them. The framework does contemplate collective licensing frameworks and protections against unauthorized replicas of people's voices and likenesses, but the core fair use question is left to judges who now know where the White House stands. That's also bad news for publishers pushing for statutory licensing models as a structural solution.

On federal preemption, the framework pushes hard to override state AI laws that "impose undue burdens" on a national strategy for "global AI dominance." The immediate target is Colorado's AI Act — the first state law requiring impact assessments and transparency for high-risk AI deployments — which was already delayed from February to June 2026 under industry pressure. The framework would put federal law above a patchwork of state rules, effectively neutering the most aggressive state-level efforts to regulate AI behavior. It's the opposite direction from the EU AI Act, which the administration's framework implicitly positions itself against.

The rest covers child safety — age verification and deepfake protections via the Take It Down Act, which targets non-consensual intimate imagery — infrastructure buildout, workforce development, and a preference for regulatory sandboxes and industry-led standards over a new AI regulator. The deepfake protections are notable given Grok's ongoing global regulatory scrutiny over sexualized AI imagery, though the framework addresses individual harm rather than platform accountability.

The overall posture is: light-touch federal rules, no new agency, and existing sector-specific regulators handle the rest. The contrast with the EU is deliberate. The administration's framework is a bet that the US approach — let companies build, let courts sort out the edges — will outcompete Europe's more prescriptive compliance regime. For publishers, that bet means the most important AI policy battles are now happening in courtrooms, not legislatures — and the traffic consequences of losing those battles are already here.

The post The White House AI blueprint tells publishers where the administration stands on copyright. Spoiler: It’s not with them appeared first on The Media Copilot.

The fight over whether AI companies should pay for news is starting to move out of private deal rooms and into policy. According to Poynter, policymakers in Europe, Brazil and other jurisdictions are exploring statutory licensing models that would require payment for the use of publisher content in AI systems.

That matters because the current market is lopsided. A handful of large publishers have negotiated licensing deals with major AI firms, while many smaller outlets are left with lawsuits, opt-out tools and not much leverage. A statutory regime would not end that fight, but it could change the terrain from bespoke negotiations to rules-based compensation.

For publishers, the appeal is obvious. Licensing laws could offer a cleaner route to payment than years of copyright litigation, especially if courts keep moving slowly on training-data disputes. Poynter reported that the European Parliament was set to vote March 10 on a proposal that could open the door to such a framework. An earlier European Parliament press release shows lawmakers were already pressing for stronger protections around copyrighted works used by generative AI.

The broader pressure is not coming from Europe alone. Poynter said Brazil is weighing a draft bill expected in April that could also require payments to publishers. That suggests the compensation debate is widening beyond the U.S. lawsuits that have dominated headlines. It is becoming a policy question about whether AI systems should be allowed to ingest and monetize journalism without a standard payment mechanism.

That does not mean publishers are aligned on the best route. Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News Media Alliance, told Poynter, “If we get the right verdicts, we will have a functional marketplace.” That line captures the split in industry strategy. One camp still wants courts to establish leverage first. Another sees statutory licensing as a faster answer to a market that now favors the biggest companies on both sides.

Why this matters for newsrooms

The practical question for newsroom leaders is not just whether they get paid. It is whether payment systems arrive in time to matter.

Publishers are already dealing with two linked problems: AI answers that may reduce referral traffic and AI training practices that may use newsroom work without clear permission. Reuters reported in February that the European Publishers Council filed an EU antitrust complaint over Google AI Overviews, arguing that AI-generated summaries can harm publisher traffic and revenue. Statutory licensing would not solve the traffic problem on its own, but it would at least create a compensation track when traffic leakage and content reuse happen together.

The industry is also becoming more organized. Poynter pointed to the UK’s SPUR coalition and Danish publishers’ legal action against OpenAI as evidence that publishers are moving beyond isolated complaints. The underlying argument is straightforward: if generative AI depends on journalism as input, journalism should not be treated as a free raw material.

What comes next

The obvious caveat is that statutory licensing still has major unanswered questions. There is no settled model yet for who would collect payments, how rates would be set or how money would be distributed among large and small publishers. That is where many legislative ideas go soft.

Still, the significance of this week’s story is that compensation is no longer just a matter of private contracts and courtroom theory. It is turning into a live policy option. If lawmakers push it forward, publishers may gain a more predictable route to payment. If they do not, the market is likely to remain a patchwork: rich publishers cut deals, everyone else waits on judges.

For newsroom executives, this is one to watch closely. The question is no longer whether publishers want payment from AI companies. It is whether governments are ready to build the machinery to force it.

The post A new licensing push could force AI companies to pay publishers for news appeared first on The Media Copilot.

A new coalition of more than 500 Hollywood professionals launched Monday to push back against unregulated AI adoption in the entertainment industry. The Creators Coalition on AI brings together Oscar winners, A-list talent, and below-the-line workers to establish shared standards for AI use in creative industries.

The group announced four core demands: transparency and compensation for content used in AI training, job protection plans, guardrails against deepfakes and misuse, and safeguards for human creativity in the production process.

“This is not a full rejection of AI,” the coalition wrote in its launch statement, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “We believe humanity is creative enough to design a system that allows for the tech and creative industries to coordinate, collaborate and flourish.”

Founding members include Daniel Kwan and Jonathan Wang of Everything Everywhere All at Once, actors Natasha Lyonne and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and former Academy president Janet Yang. More than 500 signatories joined, including Cate Blanchett, Aaron Sorkin, Rian Johnson, and Kristen Stewart.

The timing matters. The coalition accelerated its launch after Disney announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI last week, a deal that blindsided many in the industry. “We weren’t planning to announce this soon,” Kwan told THR. “But when we saw the vacuum of leadership in our industry, we felt the need to step up.”

The group held meetings with representatives from the Writers Guild, Producers Guild, Directors Guild, SAG-AFTRA, and Teamsters in November to discuss alignment on AI principles. “Everybody seemed to be much more strongly in agreement than we even anticipated,” Yang said.

Why it matters for newsrooms: The coalition offers a model for cross-guild coordination that media organizations could replicate. Its emphasis on transparency, consent, and compensation for training data directly addresses concerns facing news publishers as AI companies scrape their content without permission or payment.

The post Hollywood creators launch coalition to set AI industry standards appeared first on The Media Copilot.