sign the petition to change the unfair restrictions places on Gen AI film making and creatives

sign the petition to change the unfair restrictions places on Gen AI film making and creatives

[Date]

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: Systematic Market Manipulation in AI Content Creation Platforms

Dear Assistant Attorney General,

I am writing to bring your urgent attention to clear and actionable violations of the Sherman Act occurring across major AI content creation platforms, including but not limited to Runway ML, Adobe Firefly, and their industry counterparts. These violations represent not just technical breaches of antitrust law, but a systematic attempt to control and manipulate the future of creative expression itself.

CLEAR VIOLATIONS WITH DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE

1. Market Manipulation Through Two-Tier Access Evidence: September 2024 Lionsgate-Runway ML Partnership

• Major studios granted unlimited access to AI tools
• Independent creators blocked for identical content
• Systematic suppression of market competition
• Artificial barriers to market entry

2. Coordinated Industry Practices

• Multiple platforms implementing identical restrictions
• Systematic favoritism toward major studios
• Coordinated limitation of creative tools
• Industry-wide discrimination against independents

SPECIFIC SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS

Section 1 Violations: a) Contracts that restrict trade

• Exclusive partnerships with major studios
• Discriminatory access to AI tools
• Artificial market barriers

Section 2 Violations: b) Monopolistic practices

• Control of creative content access
• Market manipulation through selective partnerships
• Creation of artificial scarcity

DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATION

Direct Evidence:

1. Content Creation Disparity

• Major Studio Request: "Generate action sequence" → Approved
• Independent Creator: Identical request → "Content Violation"

2. Partnership Privileges

• Custom AI models for corporate partners
• Unrestricted content creation capabilities
• Preferential technical support

3. Market Impact

• Independent creators unable to compete
• Artificial barriers to entry
• Economic damage to creative sector

LEGAL PRECEDENT SUPPORT

Recent Precedent: Moody v. NetChoice (2024)

• Establishes requirements for consistent content moderation
• Prohibits discriminatory access based on user status
• Supports equal access principles

REQUESTED IMMEDIATE ACTION

1. Investigation Launch

• Review of platform partnerships
• Examination of content policies
• Analysis of market impact

2. Interim Relief

• Suspension of discriminatory practices
• Equal access mandate
• Transparent policy requirements

3. Long-term Oversight

• Regular compliance audits
• Public reporting requirements
• Non-discrimination enforcement

COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST

This matter transcends typical antitrust concerns. At stake is:

• The future of creative expression
• Market access for independent creators
• Innovation in digital arts
• Democratic access to emerging technology

The platforms' actions create not just market inefficiencies but fundamental barriers to human creative expression. When they block an independent creator while allowing major studios identical access, they're not just violating antitrust law – they're artificially limiting the scope of human imagination itself.

IMMEDIATE HARM REQUIRING ACTION

Every day these practices continue:

• Stories remain untold
• Creators lose market opportunities
• Innovation is stifled
• Competition is suppressed

CONCLUSION

These violations are clear, documented, and actionable. They represent not just technical breaches of antitrust law but a systematic attempt to control the future of creative expression through market manipulation.

We request immediate investigation and action to address these violations before they become permanently entrenched in the creative economy.

Respectfully submitted,

Adam Watson 

https://chng.it/RQWJz7Tq2c