bigfish2030

Is This the Time of Monsters or Miracles? – Angus Hervey at TED2025

/in , , , , /by

The story of our planet’s future is complex, with both positive and negative narratives unfolding. As Angus Hervey explains in his talk at TED2025, global collapse and unprecedented progress exist simultaneously within a state of “contested terrain,” and humanity’s ultimate trajectory is determined by the daily choices and deliberate actions we take in order to create a narrative of constructive solutions over destruction and despair.

From a storytelling perspective, how does Angus get his point across and create impact? One technique that he employs is a non-traditional structure built upon Juxtaposition and Paradox, contrasting a widely told “Story of Collapse” with the often-overlooked “Story of Renewal.”
You're already a storyteller guide at Lemon Squeezy

It’s a technique often used when describing social issues that essentially says, “You may be thinking this story is unfolding in one direction, and while there is truth in that view, there’s an alternate narrative that you also need to consider.”

Let’s take a look at how Angus takes the audience on a factual and emotional journey that ultimately leads to the message his story is designed to convey.

Note how he reveals his profession when he says, “I’m a solutions journalist.” Have you ever heard that phrase before? Probably not, so it becomes a hook, capturing your attention, as we’re curious about anything that’s unfamiliar.

He expands on this theme with, “reporting on stories of progress”, but then turns the narrative on its head by offering, “maybe I was wrong”. After three sentences we want to find out where his story is heading.

He illustrates the idea that he may be wrong by recounting a few present-day problems that we have heard about: the end of rules-based order, power over principle, science under attack, casual cruelty, etc. At this point in the story we feel the weight of the negative narratives that dominate our daily news cycle.

Ultimately, none of us know whether we are living in the downswing or the upswing of history.

But then he signals a shift in tone by saying, “There is something missing though from this story.”, and goes on to list off a much longer series of positive events and accomplishments that are happening around the world.

Both of these stories are true. But the only question that matters now is which one do you belong to?

This tonal shift is also apparent in his choice of words as he transitions from “monsters,” “vandalism,” and “unraveling” to using positive language, such as “bending the curve,” “protected,” and “breakthroughs”.

It’s a reminder that your word choice matters. So as you craft your story, seek out specific words and phrases that not only describe what you’re thinking, but also contain emotional impact.

Transcript

I’m a solutions journalist. For over a decade, I’ve been reporting on stories of progress.
But in the last few months, I’ve started to think that maybe I was wrong.

Almost a century ago, the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, thrown into prison by Mussolini, wrote: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”
Those words are haunting. It feels like he could be speaking to us today. A great unravelling is underway, and you know this story because it is everywhere.

The end of the international rules-based order. Power over principle. Aid budgets obliterated. Science under attack. Putin, Zelensky, Trump, Gaza, hospitals, hostages. Sudan, famine, DRC, rebels, Yemen, Venezuela, Turkey, Hungary, Taiwan. The United States of America. The economic vandalism, the contempt for the rule of law, the casual cruelty, the measles.

All of the values that we assumed were universal — truth, decency, common sense — face not just reversal but violent backlash. Beneath the surface, deeper, more menacing undercurrents: the digital platforms that were supposed to connect us now do the opposite. Algorithms breed paranoia, manufacturing division, drowning truth in deliberate falsehoods.

Carl Sagan warned us about this: an era where people, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, “we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
And as we argue online, planetary crisis: firestorms in our cities, plastic in our blood, the pollinators, the permafrost, the coral reefs, an ice-free Arctic within our lifetimes. The tipping points loom, and Gramsci’s monsters are at the gates, precisely at the moment that we seem least equipped to deal with them.

This is the story of collapse. It is on the front page of all the news sites. It is at the top of all our newsfeeds. We are intimately familiar with its graphic details. You can tune it out. You can turn it off. But you cannot ignore it.

There is something missing though from this story. Is there room in it for the words of people like Hellen Awuor O’ruro, a nurse from Kenya?

[Kenyan Nurse Voiceover]: “What I can say is that the deaths that we used to see from the severe forms of malaria in children under five have greatly gone down. And I think this is being attributed to the presence of this vaccine. The mere fact that we can now reduce these deaths, it’s really great for our community, because no one should lose a child.”

Just over 12 months ago, humanity began the roll-out of the first ever vaccine for malaria. And as you can hear, it’s working. The kids aren’t dying anymore. Already, over 5 million children in 17 countries have been vaccinated. By the end of this decade, the plan is to reach 50 million. 50 million children finally protected against a disease that has been killing children since before we invented writing. And that is not the only story that’s missing.

Since you were last all in this room, 11 countries have eliminated a disease, including Jordan, the first ever country to eliminate leprosy. Eight countries, home to over 100 million children, have either banned or committed to banning corporal punishment in all settings. Zambia, Sierra Leone, and Colombia all banned child marriage. Syria rid itself of a 50-year-old autocratic regime.

Bangladesh’s students sparked democratic change through massive protests. Voters in India, the world’s largest democracy, firmly rejected authoritarianism. England, Ireland, and Canada extended free contraception to more women. Indonesia launched a program to feed all 70 million of its school students. And did you know that Cambodia, once the world’s most mined country, is on its track to be landmine-free within the next few years?

In 2024, fewer people died from natural disasters than almost any year in history. The murder rate in the United States saw its biggest ever 12-month decline, beating the previous record which was set in 2023. And deforestation in the Amazon declined to its fourth lowest level on record, an achievement that gives me more hope for life on Earth than all the rockets that we send to Mars.

Last year, we installed enough solar panels and wind turbines to replace 6% of the world’s fossil fuel electricity. This year, we will install even more. We are bending the curve. Emissions are declining in Europe and America and have finally leveled off in China.

Electric vehicles are biting into oil demand now. Wind, water, and sunshine will overtake coal this year as the world’s leading power source, regardless of what anyone says in the White House.
And thanks to artificial intelligence, we are now starting to see breakthroughs we once thought impossible: the biggest boost to human knowledge since the scientific revolution.

We are determining the structure and interaction of every single one of life’s molecules, inventing extraordinary new enzymes, new drugs, new materials, controlling plasma and nuclear fusion experiments.

Last year, we got a new miracle drug for HIV prevention, mRNA vaccines for cancer. We found the building blocks for life in an asteroid, decoded whale speech, and discovered fractals in the quantum realm.

Did you know that sea turtle populations are increasing around the world? Or that overfishing is declining in the Mediterranean? Or that last year China finished encircling its largest desert with a giant belt of trees, its very own Great Green Wall?

And this year, the United States created its largest conservation corridor, stretching from Utah down to California. These are all victories from the last 12 months, but they happened because people, often small groups of people, fought for years and sometimes decades.

And if we extend our time frame out, even better news: over 4 million square kilometers of the world’s oceans have been protected in the last four years. Air pollution has started to decline. In the last decade, over 250 million children have gained access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene at school. And in this century—this insane roller coaster of a century—over a billion people have been lifted from extreme poverty.

Deaths from the world’s deadliest infectious diseases have halved, and for the first time in history, over 50% of students receive a high school education. We have no precedent for that: a world where the majority of people can read, write, and calculate, where most humans possess the tools to question authority and determine their own destinies.

So, which one of these stories is true? Is this the long-awaited fall from grace, or are we on a journey to the promised land? Collapse, or renewal?

The answer, of course, is that it’s both. And the truth is that it has always been this way. Even as we rebuilt from the ashes of the Second World War, the shadow of nuclear annihilation loomed. The pandemic devastated our communities, yet our scientific response was revolutionary.

Climate change threatens our future, yet its solution, clean energy, offers us a fairer, better world. This is not an easy paradox to hold in your head or in your heart: the understanding that in the same moment, innocent people are being snatched off the streets and children are dying in air strikes, the malaria wards are emptying across an entire continent, and in a faraway village under a thousand stars, a young girl who would once have been forced into marriage is studying equations under an electric light that wasn’t there a year ago.

Real life isn’t a story. History doesn’t have a moral arc. Progress isn’t a rule. It is contested terrain, fought for daily by millions of people who refuse to give in to despair. Ultimately, none of us know whether we are living in the downswing or the upswing of history.

But I do know that we all get a choice. We, all of us, get to decide which one of these stories we are a part of. We add to their grand weave in the work that we do, in the daily decisions we make about where we put our money, where we put our energy, and our time, in the stories we tell each other, and in the words that come out of our mouths.

It is not enough to believe in something anymore. It is time to do something. Ask yourself, if our worst fears come to pass and the monsters breach the walls, who do you want to be standing next to? The prophets of doom, the cynics who said “we told you so,” or the people who with their eyes wide open, dug the trenches and fetched water.

Both of these stories are true. But the only question that matters now is which one do you belong to?

Back to you…

So how did you feel after hearing Angus’ story? Did your perspective shift from doom to hope? The feeling of hope, or the belief that a better future is possible, is the most common goal when telling an impactful personal story.

The rehearsal process is where you have the opportunity to get feedback from trusted friends as to how they felt after hearing your story. If the impact wasn’t felt, you have more editing to do. But not to worry, as it typically takes a number of draft revisions to hit the reaction you’re looking for.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals.

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

bigfish2030

Are we heading towards World War III? – Heni Ozi Cukier at TEDxLisboa 2025

/in , , , , , , /by

World War I — The Great War — The War to End All Wars. With a death toll that exceeded 20 million, many believed it was, and others at least hoped it was, but such was not the case. More than 3 times as many perished during World War II. Afterwards, fewer believed or even hoped it would be the last. The atomic bomb changed everything we thought we knew about war.

The Cold War kept the world on its toes until the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, supposedly bringing that era to and end. And for a while there was a resurgence of hope that humanity had finally turned a corner. Mutual Assured Destruction was supposed to keep us crazy humans in check.

But in his talk at TEDxLisboa in March 2025, professor Heni Ozi Cukier asked the audience to consider the question again: Are we heading towards World War III? On the one hand, answering such a question would consume many hours, if not days, so the challenge from a storytelling perspective was how to do that in less than 18 minutes from the stage.

Beyond the fact that this is one of the most important questions that any of us can ask, Heni’s talk is an excellent example of how to take a very complex topic and present it in a way that general audiences — composed of people who are not experts in geopolitics — can understand.

In short, technological progress brings incredible benefits, but they also breed insecurity, resentment, and uncertainty. Historically, such anxieties have made societies more unstable and vulnerable to extreme ideologies that fuel militarism and war.

Heni does this in two ways. First, he takes us back in time to examine what was happening when previous world wars erupted. In this way we can frame what’s going on in the world today against how events transpired in the past. But even this method involves too many variables, too much complexity, so he highlights four dimensions for the audience to track from past to present:

  • social
  • economic
  • political
  • military

Within the first minute, the audience is clear on the topic at hand, the three time periods in question, and the four dimensions that will be reviewed at each stage. In a sense, he’s given them signposts to follow as the narrative unfolds, ensuring they won’t get lost along the way.

If we have the aggressors’ alliance growing stronger and the opposing alliance becoming divided and weak, the incentives for the aggressors to strike, they’re really big.

Follow along with the transcript as you listed to Heni’s talk. Notice how each element is presented in order. How each is explained enough to understand, without over-explaining. And the conclusion does not give us an answer to the question initially posed, but summarizes the current state of world affairs in a way that invites us to do our own research, and come to our own conclusion.

Transcript

History has taught us many lessons, and we should pay attention to its signs because we might be heading towards World War III.

One way to understand today’s events is to look for clues from the past. But cherry-picking historical events to forecast the future is a risky exercise that oftentimes only reinforces our biases. So, I want to do something different. Instead of comparing historical examples with what is happening now, I will examine four major dimensions of life: the social, economic, political, and military dimensions. And I will analyze key trends within each one of those dimensions in three critical moments in history: before World War I, before World War II, and today.

So, let’s begin with the social dimension. And there are many factors that shape societies, but I want to focus on how technological innovations have produced social anxieties and destabilized societies throughout history. Before World War I, the Second Industrial Revolution was transforming life with electricity, cars, phones, mass production, and more. While many celebrated these advances, they also disrupted societies.

For instance, machines replaced workers, and new farming techniques uprooted populations from the countryside. This led to insecurity and resentment. At the same time, traditional authorities such as churches and monarchies, they were questioned at that time. And new mass movements, they emerged, such as labor unions and nationalist leagues. People were afraid that progress was shaking the very foundation of societies.

Moving a little bit ahead, in the interwar years before World War II, technology continued to affect life. The word “robot” was even coined in 1921, and it symbolizes fears of possibly machines substituting human jobs. At the same time, or a little bit later, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes warned us in 1930 of a new disease, namely technological unemployment.

During this period, we had communications revolutions that completely changed public discourse. So, these media became powerful tools for propaganda, polarizing politics, and amplifying social fears. Traditionalists at that time, they were worried that modern culture was simply eroding tradition, family, and religion.

Today, we are going through a technological revolution driven by AI, digital media, and social platforms. The internet, smartphones, and social media have transformed the way we work, communicate, and even think. Psychologists, they debate how digital life is affecting children’s development, while concerns over privacy and surveillance and AI-driven job loss continue to grow. Technologies are spreading ideas across the globe, but also they are amplifying frustrations, fears, and divisions faster than ever before.

In short, technological progress brings incredible benefits, but they also breed insecurity, resentment, and uncertainty. Historically, such anxieties have made societies more unstable and vulnerable to extreme ideologies that fuel militarism and war.

Now, let’s talk about the economics. And I want to present two perspectives on the economics. The first one is related to a common idea that economic prosperity prevents wars. And the argument goes like this. It makes no sense for a nation to go to war and destroy its own wealth. So they don’t want to go to war.

Before World War I, in 1914, Britain dominated global trade and finance. Germany was thriving industrially and expanding its exports. Both countries, they knew that there were no financial benefits that justify the enormous economic costs of going to war. However, World War I taught us a very important lesson.

Economics may explain what can be done, but politics decides what will be done. Fear, ambition, miscalculation, all overrode by even the strongest economic success, showing us that simply war and peace are not decided by economic arguments alone. We have to take into consideration political, ideological, and strategic reasons.

Okay. So, what is going on with the second perspective? And the common perspective says the following. People assume that nations, they want to be wealthy and powerful. It’s not that they don’t want that, they do, but they want something else. It’s better for them if they are wealthier or more powerful than their rivals. Right? So what it matters is the relative power. I want to be more powerful, I don’t want to be just powerful, I want to be more powerful than my enemy or my rival.

Let’s look at what happened at World War II. And in that moment, Germany and Japan, they did not see trade as mutually beneficial. Why? They were gaining less than their rivals: Britain, France, and the US, which made them vulnerable. What was their response? Searching for self-sufficiency and eventually war.

So what is going on today? There are two main ideas that we see all over. The US-China economic interdependence will prevent war. Really? I just told you what happened in World War I. Right? So, economics alone do not determine geopolitical outcomes. We have to consider political, strategic, ideological, and many other factors.

When we think of what is going on after or what happened after the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at that moment, states realized that it’s too risky to be really dependent on your rival. So, as nations reassess today their economic dependencies, they are all moving towards one thing, or actually two: self-sufficiency and economic nationalism, just like before World War II.

History reminds us that wars are not only caused by economic situations, but we have to take into consideration political factors and relative power.

All right. So, let’s go to the political dimension. Here, I want to talk about polarization. And polarization not only divides societies, but ultimately it might destroy the political order. Polarization comes in many forms: divided media, political battles, legislative deadlocks, contested elections, and its worst form, political violence. And that’s when armed groups emerge because they don’t trust institutions to resolve the disputes of society.

What we have in World War I, before that actually, in the Balkans, there’s a deep polarization, and many nationalist movements clashing against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And that led to the Serbian group, the secret Serbian group Black Hand, to assassinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which wasn’t an isolated event. It was the result of years of political violence in a fractured society that triggered World War I.

Now, what do we have before World War II? The same situation. Germany. The Weimar Republic was struggling with escalating polarization, and violence became common. Assassinations of key political figures, such as the Finance Minister in 1921 and the Foreign Minister in 1922, they demonstrated this. Soon, at that time, all political factions from the right, the center, and the left, they had their own militias. And obviously, this brought instability, and we know the rise of authoritarianism and World War II.

What do we have today? Very interesting and scary in some ways. January 6, 2021, the attack on the US Capitol. Some Trump supporters contested the result of the election. That is a clear example where polarization became violent. More recently, several assassination attempts against President Trump. Polarization and violence in the United States is coming from all sides, but this is not only the US.

Let’s look at Germany. There’s a deep surge or a big surge in political violence in Germany. Over the last five years, more than 10,000 attacks on politicians, while the far-right supporters of AfD have committed a lot of attacks against other politicians. The politicians from AfD themselves, they are frequent targets for this political violence. As you can see, the signs are really big. And when we analyze what history shows us, we realize that once armed groups emerge, compromise becomes impossible and conflict inevitable. If polarization nowadays has reached this level, society or the political order is on the brink of collapse.

Now, let’s go to the final dimension, the military dimension. And here I want to focus on alliances because they are key to understanding how conflicts become worldwide disasters. Wars, or world wars, they don’t start as global wars. They begin as regional wars. And then a regional problem becomes this big problem because of the alliances. Let’s take a look at World War I before that. We had a dispute between Austria and Serbia, and because of the alliance, it escalated to become a European war. And once Britain joined, it became a global war.

The same thing happened in World War II. We had three regional conflicts, separated conflicts, initiated by three different countries. Germany won a hegemony in Europe, Italy sought an empire in the Mediterranean and Africa, and Japan wanted to control China and Asia-Pacific. World War II only became a world war when the United States entered the war after the Pearl Harbor attack.

So, how is this related to today? We already have two regional wars: Russia in Ukraine and Iran with its proxy’s wars in the Middle East. And the third one is taking shape as China aims to take Taiwan. Maybe in that third theater, we’re going to see more countries joining. And then, as in World War II, we’re going to have three regional conflicts that become a global war.

There’s another important aspect of alliances, which is the level of integration, how united they really are. This is interesting. When we look at the Axis powers of the 1930s—Germany, Italy, and Japan—they were not allied. Really, actually, they were on opposite sides. When we look at the crisis in Austria in 1934 and in Ethiopia in 1935, Italy was on one side and Germany was on the other. When we look at who was helping China against Japan until late 1938, that was Germany.

And then, comparing this to today, we have a new axis being formed: China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran today. They are all united, like who sends ammunitions, weapons, and even soldiers to help Russia fight Ukraine? North Korea. Who gives food and energy to North Korea? China. Who buys Iran’s sanctioned oil? China. Who buys Russia’s gas? China. And China supplies Russia with electronic equipment to keep its war.

As you can see, the axis of today, which I call the axis of dictatorships, they are really united, much more than the axis of the thirties. And on the other hand, we look at the opposing alliance, which is what? NATO and the democracies, they are falling apart, and they’re breaking, and they are divided.

History tells us that alliances are very important. If we have the aggressors’ alliance growing stronger and the opposing alliance becoming divided and weak, the incentives for the aggressors to strike, they’re really big. I’m not here talking about any inevitable destiny, but I’m looking for historical patterns that help us connect the dots. And with that, we might not repeat the mistakes of the past.

And to end, I want to remind you of the famous aphorism: “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

Thank you.

Some final thoughts…

You may have come to your own conclusion regarding Professor HOC’s talk, but as I see it, it’s not a prophecy of doom but a call to action. By understanding the historical patterns that have led to past conflicts, we can be more vigilant in how we address the challenges of our time. It is a reminder that peace is not a given, but something that must be actively pursued and protected. For each of us, this means staying informed, engaging in civil discourse, and holding world leaders accountable for their actions on the global stage.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

bigfish2030

Your Stories, AI, and George Washington

/in , , , /by

On this day in 1790, President George Washington signed into law the first U.S. Copyright Act. The Act emerged from the unique intersection of Enlightenment ideals, economic necessity, and the practical challenges facing a new nation as leaders were trying to establish its cultural and intellectual identity.

To understand why the law felt so urgent to the Founders, we need to step back and consider the current situation. In colonial America, there was no protection for authors’ works. Publishers could freely reprint books without compensating the original author, which created an environment of need without incentive.

George Washington Signed the U.S. Copyright Act on May 31, 1790

The Founders recognized this as more than just an economic problem — it was a threat to the kind of society they were trying to build. They believed deeply in the power of knowledge and education to sustain a republic. Think about it: how could America develop its own intellectual traditions, its own literature, its own scientific contributions, if there was no financial incentive for Americans to write and publish?

When Washington signed the Act, he was addressing several interconnected challenges. First, there was the immediate practical need to protect American authors so they could make a living from their work. Second, there was a desire to encourage the growth of American publishing and printing industries, which were still quite small compared to their British counterparts. Third, and perhaps most importantly, there was the recognition that a healthy democracy required an informed citizenry, and that meant fostering a robust marketplace of ideas.

If you enjoyed this article…
Buy me a coffee

The law itself reflected these concerns in interesting ways. It protected books, maps, and charts for fourteen years, with the possibility of renewal for another fourteen years if the author was still alive. This was actually quite generous compared to many state laws of the time, but deliberately limited to prevent the kind of perpetual monopolies that the Founders associated with European aristocracy.

It embodied a carefully considered philosophical approach that prioritized societal benefits while providing necessary incentives for creative production. The legislation was conceived in essentially utilitarian terms, taking as its primary goal the encouragement of intellectual activity and production for the good of society as a whole.

This framework aimed to guarantee both material benefits for creators and intellectual benefits for readers, recognizing that sustainable creative industries required economic incentives while knowledge advancement demanded public access to creative works.

The limited scope of the initial law — protecting only books, maps, and charts — demonstrated a focused approach to establishing the copyright system. Rather than creating a centralized copyright office, the legislation directed authors and proprietors to register their works at U.S. district courts in their areas of residence, establishing a decentralized but systematic approach to copyright administration.

Consider how this law would have affected someone like Benjamin Franklin, who was not only a scientist, inventor, and statesman but also a prolific writer and publisher in Philadelphia.

Benjamin Franklin was the author of Poor Richard's Almanac

Without copyright protection, Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” could have been freely copied by competitors, eliminating his incentive to continue producing it. The same principle applied to countless other potential authors whose stories and ideas might never have reached the public without the economic protection this law provided.

The timing of this legislation — just one year after the Constitution was ratified — reveals how fundamental the Founders considered intellectual property rights to be a critical step in the country’s evolution. They understood that the stories a nation tells about itself, through its literature, its newspapers, its scientific works, and its philosophical treatises, shape its character and destiny. By protecting authors’ rights to profit from their work, they were essentially investing in America’s future capacity to generate and share knowledge.

To ensure broad awareness of the new protections, the Act was widely printed in newspapers following its passage. This dissemination strategy reflected the government’s recognition that the law’s effectiveness depended upon public understanding of both the rights it created and the obligations it imposed.

Copyright Law and AI Training

Navigating Intellectual Property in the Age of Large Language Models

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has ignited a global debate about the ethical and legal implications of training artificial intelligence systems on copyrighted materials. As AI companies increasingly rely on vast datasets scraped from the internet, questions about intellectual property rights, fair use doctrines, and the boundaries of creative ownership have moved to the forefront of legal and technological discourse. 

Major Pending Cases

1. The New York Times v. OpenAI/Microsoft (2024)

  • Allegation: ChatGPT reproduces NYT articles verbatim and creates derivative works that compete with original reporting.
  • Defense: OpenAI claims transformative use through factual summarization and cites precedents like Authors Guild v. Google (2015).
  • Status: Oral arguments scheduled for Q3 2025; considered a bellwether for news media rights.

2. Sarah Silverman et al. v. Meta (2023)

  • Allegation: LLaMA model trained on pirated book copies from “shadow libraries” like Bibliotik.
  • Defense: Meta argues dataset providers warranted copyright compliance, shifting liability.
  • Status: Motion to dismiss pending; could establish liability chains in dataset procurement.

3. Getty Images v. Stability AI (2023)

  • Allegation: Stable Diffusion outputs contain modified Getty watermarks, proving unauthorized training.
  • Defense: Stability AI claims watermark removal constitutes transformative use.
  • Status: UK High Court allowed copyright claim to proceed to trial in 2025.

Regulatory Developments

  • U.S. Copyright Office Report (May 2025): Concluded that “unauthorized reproduction of entire creative works for commercial AI training likely exceeds fair use boundaries”. Recommended congressional action to clarify liability.
  • EU AI Act (2024): Requires AI companies to document all copyrighted materials used in training and implement opt-out mechanisms for rights holders.

Key Legal Arguments

  • Plaintiffs’ Position: Training constitutes mass infringement by creating unauthorized copies during data ingestion. Outputs act as derivative works, violating market value.
  • Defense Position: Training is transformative analysis protected by fair use, analogous to human learning. Outputs don’t replicate protected expression.

Back to you…

This is obviously a very complex topic, but I bring it up as many of my clients have published books which formed the foundation of their speaking career. In other cases, clients have worked on crafting their signature talk, and now realize there’s a book to be written.

Some storytellers are okay with their stories being referenced by AI — they feel the exposure is a positive thing. Others, however, believe their original works should be protected — they think that if they end up in the public domain they will suffer financially.

I’m not sure what the outcome will be, but I’m thinking that if President George Washington was alive today he would be concerned about how the Act is being circumvented — that the intent of protecting intellectual property was being ignored in the name of amassing wealth.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

bigfish2030

The House Un-American Activities Committee: The Day Freedom of Expression Became a Crime

/in , , , , /by

Throughout history, personal stories have been adversely affected by the acts of unjust and misguided governments. Such unjust actions are often justified for a variety of reasons, including an individual’s ethnicity, culture, gender, religion or political beliefs. This last item — political beliefs — sparked a decision that had far-reaching effects on the fabric of American society.

The date is May 26, 1938. The United States remains in a fragile state as a result of the Great Depression as its citizens watch with growing unease storm clouds gathering across Europe and Asia. But on this spring day in 1938, a war of a very different sort was being declared as the United States Congress established the House Un-American Activities Committee — a name that would in time become synonymous with fear, suspicion, and repression of free thinking.

Seeds of Suspicion

The committee’s origin grew from the genuine feelings of anxiety and concern in much of America. In the 1930s, the U.S. was a nation caught between ideologies. The rise of fascism in Europe and the spread of communist influence worldwide had many Americans wondering: who among us might harbor allegiances to a foreign power?

The committee’s original purpose seemed straightforward — to investigate any alleged disloyalty and subversive activities by private citizens, public employees, and organizations suspected of having communist or fascist ties. Reflecting the fears of their constituents, Congress believed they were creating a shield to protect American democracy from enemies within.

But what began as a tool for national security would gradually transform into something far more reaching, far more troubling, and far more destructive to the ideals of personal freedom — the freedom to think, act, and speak freely.

The Evolution of Fear

In its early years, the committee investigated various groups and individuals, though not in a way that garnered much attention. But history has a way of amplifying certain loud voices, and the committee found its loudest voice in Representative Martin Dies Jr. of Texas, who chaired it from 1938 to 1944.

Dies cast a wide net, often making sensational accusations that grabbed headlines but sometimes lacked substantial evidence.

The committee’s approach evolved with the times, and during World War II, it focused on Nazi sympathizers and fascist organizations. But as the war ended and the Cold War began, the committee’s attention shifted decisively toward communist influences.

This is when the committee truly found its dark purpose — and when it began touching the lives of ordinary Americans in ways that would forever change how we think about loyalty, dissent, and freedom.

The post-war years brought us to the era most associated with the committee’s infamy: the reign of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the broader phenomenon we now call McCarthyism. Though McCarthy himself wasn’t directly part of HUAC, the committee became a central stage for the anti-communist fervor that swept the nation.

Pencil drawing of Joseph McCarthy

Pencil Drawing of Senator Joseph McCarthy

Hollywood in the Crosshairs

Perhaps no single episode better illustrates the committee’s reach — and its tragedy — than its investigation of Hollywood. In 1947, the committee turned its attention to the film industry, convinced that communist writers, directors, and actors were using movies to spread subversive propaganda.

The hearings produced the infamous “Hollywood Ten“—writers and directors who refused to answer questions about their political beliefs and associations. These men were cited for contempt of Congress, served prison sentences, and found themselves blacklisted from working in their chosen profession.

Imagine being a screenwriter, someone whose life’s work involved crafting stories that moved audiences, only to find yourself branded as un-American for your political beliefs. The ripple effects were profound: careers destroyed, families torn apart, and an entire industry gripped by fear. Actors, writers, and directors began policing their own associations, their scripts, even their thoughts.

Pencil drawing of American screenwriter Dalton Trumbo

Pencil Drawing of American screenwriter Dalton Trumbo

This wasn’t just about Hollywood, though. The committee’s actions sent a clear message to every American: think carefully about what you believe, what you say, and whom you associate with. The very foundation of free thought and expression — pillars upon which America was built — began to crack under the weight of suspicion.

The Human Cost

The point is, history isn’t just about government policies and committees — it’s about the human stories that unfold in their wake. Teachers lost their jobs for belonging to the wrong organizations. Labor union leaders found themselves under investigation. Even librarians were questioned about the books they chose to stock.

The committee’s influence extended beyond those directly called to testify. It created what we might call a “culture of conformity” — a climate where Americans began to self-censor, to avoid controversial associations, to keep their political thoughts private. In trying to protect American values, the committee was inadvertently changing what it meant to be American.

The Reckoning

Thankfully, history has a way of (eventually) correcting course, though often at great cost. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, public opinion began to turn against the committee’s methods. The excesses became too obvious to ignore, the damage to innocent lives too severe to justify.

The committee existed until 1975, but its influence waned significantly. Court decisions began to protect the rights of those called before congressional committees. Public sentiment shifted toward valuing civil liberties over security paranoia. The very people the committee had targeted — intellectuals, artists, activists — began to speak out about their experiences.

The Long Shadow

Looking back at the House Un-American Activities Committee, we can now see it as a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting fear override our fundamental values. Historians largely view the committee’s actions as a dark chapter in American history — a time when the pursuit of security led to the trampling of civil liberties.

But here’s what makes this story particularly relevant to our times: the underlying tensions that created HUAC haven’t disappeared. Every generation faces the challenge of balancing security with freedom, of protecting society while preserving individual rights. The specific threats may change — terrorism, cyber warfare, foreign interference — but the fundamental questions remain the same.

Lessons for Today

We can only speculate how history would have unfolded had the House Un-American Activities Committee never been established. Would American society have been more open, more tolerant of dissent, more willing to engage with uncomfortable ideas? Would the civil rights movement, the anti-war protests, or the explosion of artistic expression have happened sooner?

As we navigate our own complex times, with our own fears and uncertainties, the story of HUAC whispers to us across the decades: be vigilant not just against external threats, but against the erosion of the very values that make our society worth protecting. For in the end, the greatest danger to any democracy may not come from its enemies, but from the compromises it makes with its own principles in the name of security.

Even though the House Un-American Activities Committee was disbanded nearly fifty years ago, its shadow still falls across American life, and its basic premise of persecuting people for their beliefs has seen a resurgence in America.

Back to you…

How has your personal story been influenced by some form of discrimination or persecution? Have you ever felt that it wasn’t safe to express your true feelings for fear that you would have to pay a price — a price so high that you remained silent? Do you live in a country — or have lived in a country — that is repressing freedom of thought? Sharing such stories is vital if we want personal freedom to thrive.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

bigfish2030

Crazy Bet by Nate DiMeo @ The Memory Palace

/in , , , , , /by

Long time readers of this blog already know that one of my favorite storytelling podcasts is The Memory Palace, hosted by Nate DiMeo. And the exciting news is that Nate’s new book was recently released. No surprise that the book’s title is: The Memory Palace – True Short Stories of the Past (Kindle, Hardcover). I know many of you are going digital these days, but the book cover is so beautiful I’m recommending people spend a few extra bucks for an edition they can hold.

While avid listeners won’t need an explanation, those of you who are unfamiliar with Nate’s podcast could use a primer as this is an unusual style of storytelling. Not only is the narrator (Nate) not part of the story, but each episode magically condenses what could be a rather long recitation (we’re talking hours here) of someone’s life story into a few brief minutes — a thread, if you will, that leads listeners on a journey of how the person at the center of the story came to be, and how they changed the course of history. While it differs from the type of personal storytelling I typically focus on, Nate’s ability to distill people, places, and events into a compact narrative is a valuable skill we can all utilize when crafting our own story. Pay special attention to the visual nature of his prose.

The Memory Palace Book by Nate DiMeo

So many stories stood out for me — expect a few more posts down the road — so it was hard to pick one to feature, but as I have a thing for historical spycraft (you probably didn’t know that about me) I found one episode of great interest. Spies are characters in every war, but I had never hear of Elizabeth Van Lew, so was unaware of the role she played in aiding the Union during the Civil War.

This chapter in the book spans a bit over three pages, which doesn’t sound like much space for a story, but Nate paints a compelling picture of her personality and active contribution. Elizabeth, or Crazy Bet, as the title informs us, lived in Richmond, Virginia, which became the capital of the Confederacy in spring 1861. People often said she was an odd duck, which I took to be an apt description of her basic nature, but to some extent she would exaggerate her mannerisms in order to deflect suspicion from her real mission.

And when she was twenty-five and her father died, this stange, willful woman did something that confirmed to all of Richmond society that se was indeed nuts. She freed her slaves.

Soon after the start of the war she began visiting Union POWs at Libby Prison, bringing cakes and bread and meat wrapped in cloth, and books and Bibles. Toward the end of the war, when the capital was falling, Elizabeth raised an American flag atop her house. Angry residents attempted to burn her house down, but Crazy Bet didn’t back down and forced the crowd to retreat.

There’s so much more to her story, including the fact that after Richmond fell, General Ulysses S, Grant stopped by for tea and recognized the part she played in helping win the war. As is his style, Nate provides just enough detail, allowing us to visualize Elizabeth and her visits to prison. It’s the kind of storytelling that inspires us to ask, “What else did she do during the war, and during her life?”

That’s the ideal balance to aim for when creating personal stories. Enough detail to make your point, and at the same time, inspire a sense of curiosity, to provide an invitation for listeners / readers to explore the topic further.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy me a coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved