Artists upset at WeTransfer’s new terms letting it train AI on uploaded files

WeTransfer faced widespread artist outrage after updating its terms of service to grant itself sweeping rights to use all content transferred through its platform, including for AI training purposes. The controversy highlights growing concerns about how tech companies exploit user data, particularly as AI becomes more prevalent in content generation and manipulation.

What happened: WeTransfer’s July 14 terms update initially granted the Amsterdam-based company “a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable license to use your Content for the purposes of operating, developing, commercialising and improving the Service or new technologies or services, including to improve performance of machine learning models.”

• The terms explicitly included rights to “reproduce, distribute, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, broadcast, communicate to the public, publicly display, and perform Content.”
• Users would receive no compensation for having their content repurposed by WeTransfer.
• Following backlash, the company revised the language but still maintains broad usage rights over transferred content.

Why artists are particularly concerned: The updated terms posed unique risks for creative professionals who regularly transfer sensitive work through the platform.

• Artists worried about WeTransfer potentially generating derivative works from their original creations without consent or compensation.
• The file-sharing service could have accessed confidential materials like immigration documents or private collection photographs for commercial purposes.
• Many artists already face similar exploitative clauses in museum and corporate collection agreements, making WeTransfer’s overreach feel especially problematic.

The bigger picture: WeTransfer’s policy change reflects a broader pattern of tech companies monetizing user data, but AI training represents a new frontier of exploitation.

• The company already had extensive rights to user content before the AI clause was added, including the ability to “reproduce, communicate, publish, publicly display, distribute and edit and prepare derivative works.”
• WeTransfer later clarified in a blog post that the AI training clause was introduced for “possible future uses” and has since abandoned those plans.
• The controversy illustrates how AI capabilities have made existing data harvesting practices more threatening to users’ intellectual property.

What the company is saying: WeTransfer attempted to justify its position while walking back some of the more egregious language.

• The revised terms now state the company needs “certain rights related to Content that is covered by intellectual property rights” to “operate, provide you with, and improve the Service.”
• Under EU regulations, users can request data deletion, but WeTransfer’s privacy policy includes exceptions when “WeTransfer’s interest in using the information outweighs your wish for its deletion.”

The underlying issue: The backlash reveals how AI has changed users’ perception of data exploitation, even when similar practices existed previously.

• As author Sarp Kerem Yavuz notes, “we need to bear in mind the age-old saying: ‘If the product is free, you are the product.'”
• Digital companies have been monetizing user data for two decades, but AI training capabilities have made these practices more visible and concerning to users.
• The controversy raises questions about whether users are only uncomfortable with data exploitation when it involves AI, despite similar human-led processes occurring for years.