The NYT's seemingly contradictory AI strategy is a deliberate two-pronged approach. Lawsuits enforce intellectual property rights and prevent unauthorized scraping, while licensing deals demonstrate a clear, sustainable market and fair value exchange for its journalism.
Unlike OpenAI or Google, Perplexity AI doesn't build its own foundational models. This lack of a core asset means it cannot offer publishers lucrative licensing deals for their content. Consequently, mounting copyright lawsuits from major publishers pose a much greater existential threat, as Perplexity has no bargaining chips.
There is emerging evidence of a "pay-to-play" dynamic in AI search. Platforms like ChatGPT seem to disproportionately cite content from sources with which they have commercial deals, such as the Financial Times and Reddit. This suggests paid partnerships can heavily influence visibility in AI-generated results.
Contrary to the belief that costly journalism is subsidized by lifestyle products, the NYT CEO asserts that hardcore news is the most economically value-creating part of the business because it generates a massive audience and brand authority.
By striking a formal licensing deal for its IP, Disney gives a powerful counterargument against OpenAI's potential "fair use" claims for other copyrighted material. This willingness to pay for some characters while scraping others could be used as evidence in future lawsuits from creators.
The NYT CEO frames lawsuits and public denigration from political figures not as genuine legal or reputational threats, but as a calculated tactic to intimidate and deter high-quality, independent reporting. The company's explicit stance is to refuse to be cowed by this strategy.
Actors like Bryan Cranston challenging unauthorized AI use of their likeness are forcing companies like OpenAI to create stricter rules. These high-profile cases are establishing the foundational framework that will ultimately define and protect the digital rights of all individuals, not just celebrities.
AI services crawl web content but present answers directly, breaking the traditional model where creators earn revenue from traffic. Without compensation, the incentive to produce quality content diminishes, putting the web's business model at risk.
OpenAI launched Sora 2 knowing it would generate copyrighted content to achieve viral growth and app store dominance, planning to implement controls only after securing market position and forcing rights holders to negotiate.
Unlike Google Search, which drove traffic, AI tools like Perplexity summarize content directly, destroying publisher business models. This forces companies like the New York Times to take a hardline stance and demand direct, substantial licensing fees. Perplexity's actions are thus accelerating the shift to a content licensing model for all AI companies.
Disney is licensing its IP to OpenAI, avoiding the "Napster trap" where music labels sued file-sharing services into bankruptcy but lost control of the streaming market. By partnering, Disney shapes the use of its IP in AI and benefits financially, rather than fighting a losing legal battle against technology's advance.