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.

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.

Anthropic's $1.5B copyright settlement highlights that massive infringement fines are no longer an existential threat to major AI labs. With the ability to raise vast sums of capital, these companies can absorb such penalties by simply factoring them into their next funding round, treating them as a predictable operational expense.

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.

By partnering with one AI leader now, Disney gains crucial insights while positioning itself to incite a bidding war later. The strategy is to leverage its learnings to force competitors like Google and Meta to pay a premium for access to its valuable IP, ensuring it maximizes future revenue streams.

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.

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.