Despite the massive OpenAI-Disney deal, there is no clarity on how licensing fees will flow down to the original creators of characters. This mirrors a long-standing Hollywood issue where creators under "work for hire" agreements see little upside from their creations, a problem AI licensing could exacerbate.
Related Insights
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.
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 OpenAI-Disney partnership establishes a clear commercial value for intellectual property in the AI space. This sets a powerful legal precedent for ongoing lawsuits (like NYT v. OpenAI), compelling all other LLM developers to license content rather than scrape it for free, formalizing the market.
Venture capitalists calling creators "Luddite snooty critics" for their concerns about AI-generated content creates a hostile dynamic that could turn the entire creative industry against AI labs and their investors, hindering adoption.
Instead of exclusive, all-encompassing deals, media conglomerates like Disney should strategically license separate parts of their IP portfolio (e.g., Pixar to Google, Marvel to Anthropic). This creates a competitive market among LLM providers, driving up the value of the IP and maximizing licensing revenue.
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.
The core legal battle is a referendum on "fair use" for the AI era. If AI summaries are deemed "transformative" (a new work), it's a win for AI platforms. If they're "derivative" (a repackaging), it could force widespread content licensing deals.
Beyond the equity stake and Azure revenue, Satya Nadella highlights a core strategic benefit: royalty-free access to OpenAI's IP. For Microsoft, this is equivalent to having a "frontier model for free" to deeply integrate across its entire product suite, providing a massive competitive advantage without incremental licensing costs.
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.
