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.

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.

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.

Historically, the value of content IP like scripts and music declined sharply 30-60 days after release. AI tools can now "reimagine" these dormant libraries quickly and cost-effectively, creating new derivative works. This presents a massive, previously untapped opportunity to unlock new revenue streams from back catalogs.

AI models are becoming commodities; the real, defensible value lies in proprietary data and user context. The correct strategy is for companies to use LLMs to enhance their existing business and data, rather than selling their valuable context to model providers for pennies on the dollar.

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.

The AI value chain flows from hardware (NVIDIA) to apps, with LLM providers currently capturing most of the margin. The long-term viability of app-layer businesses depends on a competitive model layer. This competition drives down API costs, preventing model providers from having excessive pricing power and allowing apps to build sustainable businesses.