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.

This conflict is bigger than business; it’s about societal health. If AI summaries decimate publisher revenues, the result is less investigative journalism and more information power concentrated in a few tech giants, threatening the diverse press that a healthy democracy relies upon.

The geopolitical competition in AI will decide the economic value of intellectual property. If the U.S. approach, which respects copyright, prevails, IP retains value. If China's approach of training on all data without restriction dominates the global tech stack, the value of traditional copyright could be driven toward zero.

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.

When an AI tool generates copyrighted material, don't assume the technology provider bears sole legal responsibility. The user who prompted the creation is also exposed to liability. As legal precedent lags, users must rely on their own ethical principles to avoid infringement.

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.

Beyond revenue loss, AI summaries threaten publishers by stripping context from their work and controlling the narrative. Over time, this trains users to see Google, not the original creators, as the primary source of authority, eroding hard-won brand trust.

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.