Listen to this article.
Summary
The evolving landscape of AI content licensing deals with publishers is a dynamic interplay of technological innovation, legal complexities, and economic considerations. As artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI, increasingly permeates various sectors, the relationship between AI companies and content creators has become both a point of collaboration and contention. Notable instances such as The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged copyright infringement underscore the significant legal challenges and potential for litigation in this space. These legal battles have far-reaching implications, possibly reshaping copyright laws and the principles of fair use concerning AI-generated content. In response to these challenges, AI companies like OpenAI have been proactive in securing licensing agreements with major publishers. These partnerships aim to legitimize access to copyrighted material, thereby avoiding litigation and fostering cooperative relationships. Landmark deals include OpenAI’s agreements with The Associated Press, German publisher Axel Springer, and French and Spanish publishers Le Monde and Prisa Media. Such collaborations highlight the necessity for AI companies to navigate complex legal frameworks and ensure compliance with intellectual property laws. The types of AI content licensing deals vary significantly, each with its benefits and challenges. Models range from direct licensing agreements, which offer tailored contracts but are administratively burdensome, to collective licensing and compulsory licensing, which aim to democratize access and streamline processes but often result in perceived unfair compensation. The choice of licensing model impacts both large and small rights holders differently, influencing the broader dynamics of the media and publishing industries. The future outlook for AI content licensing deals is marked by uncertainties and potential regulatory shifts. Legal outcomes from ongoing cases and evolving state and federal regulations will likely shape the landscape, affecting all stakeholders involved. Moreover, the high costs associated with these deals pose significant barriers to entry, potentially stifling innovation and competition within the AI industry. As the sector continues to evolve, the establishment of common licensing models and equitable agreements remains crucial for sustaining a balanced and innovative ecosystem.
History
The relationship between AI companies and publishers has been evolving rapidly over the last few years, marked by a series of significant events and legal battles. The tension between content creators and AI developers came to a head with several high-profile lawsuits, most notably the case of The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft for the unpermitted use of Times articles to train GPT large language models[1]. This lawsuit, filed on grounds of copyright infringement, claimed that OpenAI was using Times’ copyrighted content without authorization during the training of its models[1]. The lawsuit highlighted specific instances of alleged unauthorized copying, including verbatim passages from works such as Basbanes’ “A Masterpiece in the Making: Benjamin Franklin and the Creation of The Pennsylvania Gazette” and Higginbotham’s “Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the Worst Nuclear Disaster in History”[2]. The implications of this legal battle extend beyond the parties involved, potentially reshaping the relationship between generative AI and copyright law, particularly in terms of fair use[2]. While these legal challenges were unfolding, OpenAI began to seek out partnerships with publishers as a way to mitigate potential conflicts and secure legitimate access to content. In July 2023, OpenAI signed a two-year deal with The Associated Press, allowing ChatGPT to ingest the publisher’s news stories[3]. This was followed by agreements with German publisher Axel Springer in December 2023, and subsequently with French and Spanish publishers Le Monde and Prisa Media in March 2024[3]. These partnerships were part of OpenAI’s broader effort to avoid litigation and ensure compliance with copyright laws[3]. In addition to these individual agreements, OpenAI has been actively engaging in broader negotiations to license content from various publishers. Tom Rubin, OpenAI’s head of intellectual property and content, indicated that the company is in discussions with numerous publishers and that these negotiations are progressing positively[4]. This proactive approach is part of OpenAI’s strategy to secure its AI models’ training data while fostering cooperative relationships with content creators. Parallel to these efforts, OpenAI has been working to comply with Article 15 of the 2019 European Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This directive mandates licensing agreements with press publication owners to protect their rights in the digital marketplace[5]. By November 2022, OpenAI had successfully secured licensing agreements covering more than 1,000 publications across eleven European countries, with ongoing discussions aimed at expanding this coverage[5]. The collaboration between AI companies and publishers also saw innovative approaches to content citation and usage. For instance, the Financial Times (FT) Group announced that citations of its articles would appear as “rich links” in ChatGPT, allowing users to click through to the original FT.com articles[6]. This feature reflects an evolving landscape where AI and traditional media are finding ways to coexist and mutually benefit from each other’s strengths. As the landscape of AI and content licensing continues to evolve, it remains clear that securing proper licensing agreements is essential for both compliance and fostering a sustainable relationship between AI developers and content creators. This collaborative approach not only helps avoid legal pitfalls but also ensures that the creative economy thrives in an increasingly AI-driven world[7].
Types of AI Content Licensing Deals
Direct Licensing
Direct licensing involves agreements made directly between the AI companies and the rights holders. This model allows for tailored contracts that can maximize revenue for large rights holders but can pose a significant administrative burden due to the necessity of negotiating numerous individual agreements[8]. Direct licensing models offer the highest potential for large rights holders to secure substantial license revenues[9]. However, these agreements can hinder participation by smaller rights holders due to the complexity and resource requirements involved in one-to-one negotiations[9].
Commercial Aggregators
Licensing through commercial aggregators provides a middle-ground approach by pooling content from multiple rights holders and offering it to AI companies. This model can democratize purchasing ability by lowering license fees, thereby making it fair to both small and large rights holders while streamlining administrative requirements[9]. Aggregation potentially offers more transparency and simplified administration, compared to direct licensing[9].
Collective Licensing
Collective licensing involves rights holders joining forces through collective entities to negotiate licensing deals. This model is designed to distribute license revenue and opportunities more equitably among rights holders. However, smaller rights holders often view the compensation as insufficient, and the rates established by government-compulsory licenses are frequently regarded as too low by all parties involved[8]. The proliferation of for-profit collective licensing startups may also result in inefficiencies, as numerous small-scale collectives might mirror the complexity of hundreds of individual deals[8].
Compulsory Licensing
Compulsory licensing is a government-regulated model that sets standardized rates and terms for the use of content. While this can lower administrative burdens and ensure broader access to licensing opportunities, compulsory licenses often set rates that rights holders consider too low[9]. Periodic court and regulatory proceedings are required to review and adjust rates and other terms, which can impose additional administrative duties on stakeholders[9].
Voluntary Licensing
Voluntary licensing agreements, including opt-in collective licensing, allow rights holders to choose to participate in licensing arrangements. This model is particularly relevant in industries like journalism, where trade associations such as the News/Media Alliance promote voluntary licensing to manage access to fast-breaking news content for AI engines[8]. However, the confidential nature of these deals and their varying terms can complicate efforts to establish common licensing models or standards[8]. Each of these licensing models presents unique benefits and challenges. Stakeholders must weigh factors such as administrative burden, compensation fairness, and the scalability of agreements to determine the most suitable approach for their needs[9].
Key Players
The landscape of AI content licensing deals with publishers involves several key players, including major news organizations and leading AI companies.
Major Publishers
Several prominent U.S. and international publishers have banded together to address the challenges posed by AI technologies. This coalition includes The New York Times, News Corp, Axel Springer, and Dotdash Meredith owner IAC, among others[10]. These publishers are particularly concerned about the impact of AI on web traffic and the potential for AI chatbots to scrape data from their websites without proper attribution[10]. These publishers are also engaging in negotiations with tech firms to sell their journalism as training material for AI models. Accurate, well-written news is highly valuable to these models, and publishers are negotiating deals to protect their intellectual property and secure compensation[11]. However, this has led to a debate within the industry about whether these deals genuinely benefit publishers or compromise their integrity[12].
AI Companies
On the AI front, companies like OpenAI, Google, and Apple are leading the charge in integrating AI technologies with news content. OpenAI, for instance, is actively pursuing business deals with publishers to use their content for training generative AI models[11]. Google has also demonstrated an AI tool called Genesis, which generates news stories from factual data, to executives from leading news organizations such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post[13]. These tech companies claim to be interested in developing new models for distributing and crediting news, though there is skepticism about whether these models will truly benefit the news industry or simply serve the companies’ interests[11]. Despite these concerns, the AI companies are pushing forward with their initiatives, highlighting the need for new industry standards and collaborative licensing models to navigate this evolving landscape[14].
Industry Influencers
Influential figures in the media and tech industries are also playing a significant role in shaping the future of AI content licensing. Alex Bestall, the founder and CEO of Rightsify and Global Copyright Exchange (GSX), is at the forefront of the AI music revolution, advocating for collaborative efforts between rights holders and AI developers to refine licensing models and establish industry standards[14]. His perspective underscores the importance of collaboration and trust in adapting to the rapidly changing landscape of AI and content licensing.
Recent Notable Deals
OpenAI and Financial Times
In a similar vein, the Financial Times (FT) announced a partnership with OpenAI on April 29, 2024. The agreement recognizes the value of FT’s award-winning journalism and provides insights into how AI can surface content. John Ridding, CEO of FT Group, spoke about the mutual interest in validating generative AI content against trusted sources[3][6][15].
OpenAI and Axel Springer
German media giant Axel Springer, which owns Business Insider and Politico, inked a content licensing deal with OpenAI on December 13, 2023. Axel Springer received tens of millions of euros for the deal, which aims to advance AI-empowered journalism. Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner highlighted the potential for AI to enhance the quality and societal relevance of journalism[3][8].
OpenAI and News Corp
On May 22, 2024, News Corp, the parent company of Fox News and renowned for owning prominent publications such as The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, announced a partnership with OpenAI. The collaboration was warmly welcomed by News Corp’s CEO Robert Thomson, who praised OpenAI’s commitment to the commercial and social significance of journalism. “We are delighted to have found principled partners in Sam Altman and his trusty, talented team who understand the commercial and social significance of journalists and journalism,” Thomson stated[16][3].
OpenAI and Associated Press
The Associated Press (AP), a non-profit news agency, was among the first to engage in a significant licensing deal with OpenAI. Announced on July 23, 2023, the agreement allows OpenAI access to AP’s news archive dating back to 1985. This partnership ensures that AP’s content is protected and that content creators receive fair compensation for their work. Kristin Heitmann, AP’s senior vice president and chief revenue officer, emphasized the importance of such a framework[3][17].
OpenAI and Dotdash Meredith
Dotdash Meredith, the media company that owns several lifestyle and entertainment magazines, revealed its agreement with OpenAI on May 7, 2024. CEO Neil Vogel lauded OpenAI’s efforts to partner with creators and publishers to ensure a healthy internet for the future[18][8].
OpenAI and Le Monde & Prisa Media
OpenAI expanded its reach in Europe by signing deals with Le Monde and Prisa Media in March 2024. These agreements brought French and Spanish news content to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, enabling the AI to access current events coverage from notable brands like El País and El Huffpost[3][19].
OpenAI and Vox Media
On May 29, 2024, Vox Media announced its deal with OpenAI. The company, which owns a wide range of publications including The Verge and New York Magazine, did not inform its staffers ahead of time, leading to concerns from the Vox Media Union. The union expressed worries about the potential adverse impacts on its members and the ethical and environmental implications of generative AI[8][6].
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Understanding the legal and ethical landscape surrounding AI content licensing deals with publishers is crucial for all parties involved. This section outlines key areas of concern, ranging from copyright implications to the significance of indemnification clauses.
Copyright Implications
When engaging in AI content licensing deals, it is vital to check for any existing precedents or case law that could be relevant. A thorough understanding of the implications of copyright laws is essential before moving forward [20]. One of the primary concerns revolves around the interpretation of what constitutes a “derivative work” under intellectual property laws, which can vary by jurisdiction. Different federal circuit courts may provide varying interpretations, often hinging on the fair use doctrine. This doctrine allows copyrighted work to be used without the owner’s permission for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, provided the use is transformative [21]. Fair use has historically clashed with technological advancements. For example, Google successfully argued that scraping text from books to create its search engine was a transformative use, setting a precedent that remains influential today [21]. However, rightsholders, including publishers and content creators, have raised concerns about the use of their copyright-protected content in AI training, especially in commercial contexts. They argue that this practice could undermine the market for their works and threaten their livelihoods [22]. The fair use provision does not allow copyright owners to opt out, as doing so could impede public interest goals, including research and education. Allowing opt-outs could lead to rent-seeking or anti-competitive behavior and would particularly harm underfunded research disciplines or geographical regions [22].
Indemnification Clauses
Indemnification clauses are another critical aspect of content license agreements. These clauses come in various forms, such as liability protection, breach of warranty, and breach of contract. They are designed to protect both the licensor and licensee from liability, helping them understand their respective rights and responsibilities [20]. In content license agreements, indemnification clauses can significantly impact the agreement, making it crucial to fully comprehend their role before proceeding [20].
The Need for Legal Expertise
Given the complexities of copyright laws and the potential for legal challenges, having a good Intellectual Property (IP) rights lawyer is indispensable. Copyright law is intricate, and various limitations exist on how far it extends. Lawyers would first look for proof of copyright and any facets that might undermine the assertion of infringement. Additionally, they would evaluate whether the content in question is copyrightable [1]. The “clean-hands doctrine” further complicates matters by precluding recovery based on equitable claims if the party seeking relief has acted unethically. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of good faith in legal proceedings [1].
The Broader Ethical Debate
The ethical debate around AI and copyright is multifaceted. Some argue that scanning copyrighted works for AI development could lead to transformative technologies beneficial to society. Others believe that existing laws are sufficient to handle issues raised by generative AI, while some call for an overhaul of copyright laws to address new challenges posed by AI advancements [1].
Economic Impact
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in content licensing has significant economic implications, both positive and negative, for various stakeholders in the media and entertainment industry. AI technologies, particularly generative AI, are projected to generate substantial revenue. By the end of 2023, generative AI products are expected to earn $3.7 billion in revenue. These tools have the potential to enhance productivity across several business functions, including software development, marketing, customer service, and product management[23]. However, the broader media industry has faced economic challenges, with 2023 witnessing over 17,000 job cuts in the U.S. alone and a decline in advertising CPMs. Prominent startups like Vice Media and BuzzFeed News have either declared bankruptcy or shut down, illustrating the sector’s financial instability[23]. One of the primary benefits of AI in content licensing is the potential for improved efficiency and cost reduction. AI-powered tools can automate various aspects of the content licensing process, such as negotiations, contracts, content identification, and usage tracking. This automation can streamline the licensing process, reduce costs, and enhance overall efficiency for businesses[24]. On the other hand, AI licensing deals also present economic challenges for publishers. There are concerns about under-compensation and exploitation, as the sums offered to publishers might appear substantial but may not adequately reflect the value generated by AI models from their content[12]. Furthermore, the lack of transparent valuation metrics for content complicates the assessment of these deals’ fairness, potentially leading to publishers underselling their valuable content[12]. Another economic consideration is the dependency risk for publishers. As AI companies gain access to extensive data archives, publishers may find themselves at a disadvantage in renegotiating terms once the initial deal period concludes. This dependency could undermine their autonomy and necessitate continuous content contributions to the AI pipeline without commensurate returns[12].
Case Studies
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith
One significant case that could shape how the products of generative AI are treated involves the Andy Warhol Foundation and photographer Lynn Goldsmith. Goldsmith had licensed an image of the late musician Prince, which was later used by Andy Warhol. The case, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, could refine U.S. copyright law on the issue of when a piece of art is sufficiently different from its source material to be considered unequivocally “transformative” and whether the meaning of the derivative work should be evaluated during this transformation. If the court finds that the Warhol piece is not a fair use, it could spell trouble for AI-generated works[21].
Google Books Fair Use Lawsuit
Another pivotal example is the Google Books fair use lawsuit, which lasted over a decade. In this case, Google’s digitizing of books to display brief quotes in response to search queries was deemed fair use by the Second Circuit. This case illustrates the fact-specific nature of fair use determinations, requiring a court’s application of a four-factor test, focusing on the purpose and market impact of the use. Not every AI model’s use case may receive a similar fair use endorsement, highlighting the uncertainty and time-consuming nature of such legal battles[9].
The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
OpenAI is currently involved in a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, claiming unpermitted use of Times articles to train GPT large language models (LLMs). At the heart of the Times’s complaint is the assertion that OpenAI’s dataset contains a significant amount of Times copyrighted content, infringing on copyrights through unlicensed and unauthorized use. This case could significantly impact the relationship between generative AI and copyright law, particularly concerning fair use, and determine the future building of AI models[1]. In a recent filing dated July 1, 2024, OpenAI requested various materials from The New York Times as part of the discovery process. This includes reporter’s notes, interview memos, and other materials to ascertain whether the Times’s works are protectable intellectual property. The Times argues that such invasive discovery requests are unprecedented and serve no purpose other than harassment. The outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for future cases involving generative AI and copyright infringement[1].
Licensing Agreements and Strategic Moves
AI companies, facing potential litigation, have begun to secure licensing agreements with large content owners. These deals are seen as a revenue stream for publications and a way for AI companies to hedge against litigation threats. For instance, an AI company might include terms in an agreement preventing outlets from suing over past content usage. Such licensing agreements aim to reduce overall exposure and “launder past behavior” by ensuring no claims are made for past content scraping[25]. Tech companies like OpenAI, which have reached significant revenue milestones, continue to form big-ticket partnerships with publishers. These partnerships allow AI companies to offer up-front compensation for content likely used to train their LLMs, fostering a mutually beneficial relationship while mitigating legal risks[26].
Technological Advancements
The era of rapid technological advancements has ushered in the transformative power of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Big Data across industries. These cutting-edge technologies offer the potential to revolutionize operations, decision-making, and customer experiences, driving businesses toward a more efficient and data-driven future[27]. From an industry perspective, AI, ML, and Big Data have already proven to be game-changers by enabling automation, data processing, and predictive analytics. This leads to streamlined processes and increased productivity. By harnessing vast amounts of data, businesses can make informed decisions and respond swiftly to market trends[27]. Incorporating AI, ML, and Big Data technologies into existing systems can be complex. Ensuring seamless integration and compatibility with legacy infrastructure is vital to avoid disruptions and delays[27]. The rapid pace of AI adoption creates a demand for skilled professionals capable of working with these technologies, pushing industries to invest in upskilling their workforce and fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability[27]. Generative AI, in particular, has shown immense potential in improving productivity across numerous business functions, including software development, marketing, customer service, and product management[23]. Despite these advantages, 2023 has been challenging for the media industry, with a record number of layoffs and the decline of promising startups like Vice Media and BuzzFeed News[23]. From a legal standpoint, AI developers must ensure compliance with laws regarding the acquisition of data used for training their models. This includes licensing and compensating individuals who own the intellectual property (IP) added to the training data, or sharing in the revenue generated by the AI tool[21]. Content creators with a significant library of their own IP may consider building their own datasets to train AI platforms, enabling them to produce content in the same style as their own work[21]. AI technologies, such as machine learning and natural language processing, have become valuable tools for content licensing professionals, allowing them to more effectively manage and monetize their content[24]. These technologies can help companies identify and track digital content, streamline licensing negotiations, and monitor content usage and enforcement[24]. While the applications of AI have been invaluable, they are not without challenges. Implementing AI in publishing and other sectors requires careful thought, effort, and understanding of the technology and its applications[28]. For instance, generative AI can be trained to identify and extract key terms from dense legal contracts, significantly reducing the time spent on contract review[28]. Finally, licensing video data for AI model training presents a substantial financial opportunity for film and TV producers, particularly as AI companies strive to improve video generation models[29]. Despite the benefits, it is crucial to have regulatory guardrails in place to mitigate risks associated with AI training[22].
Criticisms and Challenges
Perplexity, a key player in the generative AI industry, has found itself at the center of significant controversy over its content licensing practices. One primary point of contention is the use of original reporting from news publishers without consent or compensation, which has sparked fierce debates regarding internet scraping practices by AI developers. Forbes, for instance, accused Perplexity of plagiarism for republishing its original report on former Google CEO Eric Schmidt without proper citation[30]. This has raised broader concerns about the ethics and legality of AI-generated content, especially when it involves copyrighted material. The criticisms are not limited to Perplexity. OpenAI, another major entity in the AI space, is facing legal challenges from The New York Times. The Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for unpermitted use of its articles to train their large language models (LLMs), alleging that this use infringes on copyrights through the unauthorized reproduction of its works[1]. Specific instances cited in the lawsuit include passages from Basbanes’ “A Masterpiece in the Making: Benjamin Franklin and the Creation of The Pennsylvania Gazette” and Higginbotham’s “Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the Worst Nuclear Disaster in History” appearing verbatim in outputs generated by OpenAI’s models[2]. Furthermore, the impact of AI on the creative economy and traditional journalism is another critical issue. Media executives, including Robert Thomson of News Corp, have raised alarms about the existential threats posed by generative AI. These concerns encompass potential job losses in roles such as copyediting and copywriting, the risk of widespread disinformation, and the broader diminishment of writing as a craft[16]. Such anxieties are exacerbated by the financial struggles of publishers in the current digital economy, where revenue generation is already a significant challenge. AI tools have also been criticized for their accuracy and reliability. For example, the financial publication CNET had to issue corrections for a series of SEO-optimized articles generated by AI tools, which were found to be riddled with factual errors and instances of plagiarism[23]. This raises questions about the feasibility of integrating AI into newsroom content channels without compromising quality and accuracy. In response to these criticisms, companies like Perplexity have made changes to their practices. For instance, after being criticized for lacking proper citations, Perplexity introduced in-copy citations to enhance transparency and accountability[30]. Despite these efforts, the broader challenges and ethical dilemmas surrounding AI and content licensing remain contentious and unresolved.
Future Outlook
The future of AI content licensing deals with publishers is teeming with uncertainties and potential pivotal developments. The legal battles and licensing negotiations currently underway are not only shaping the immediate landscape but also setting precedents that could have far-reaching implications for the AI industry and the realm of intellectual property as a whole[2]. These legal results are likely to impact virtually all AI makers and generative AI applications, with each procedural development in ongoing cases hinting at significant future repercussions[1]. Moreover, regulatory activities are intensifying both federally and at the state level in the United States. Initiatives that either prohibit certain AI applications or mandate specific safeguards are beginning to take shape, applying across various types of AI technologies as well as targeting specific industries. For instance, several U.S. state privacy laws have recently incorporated restrictions on automated decision-making and profiling, granting consumers rights to “opt-out” of these functions[31][32]. This evolving regulatory landscape indicates a trend towards more stringent oversight and potentially more standardized licensing frameworks. The competition dynamics within the AI industry are another crucial aspect of the future outlook. The high costs associated with licensing deals are creating substantial barriers to entry for smaller companies and new entrants. This situation raises significant concerns about stifling innovation, as only large tech companies like Google and OpenAI can afford these licensing fees, effectively minimizing future competition[19]. In terms of content licensing models, a significant shift may be on the horizon. Current individual licensing deals, although encouraging in showing that licensing is feasible, are fraught with issues such as lack of scalability and confidentiality. These challenges hinder the industry’s ability to converge on common licensing models or terms and often exclude smaller copyright owners. However, as these collective licensing schemes continue to evolve, a market shakeout and consolidation appear inevitable[8]. AI’s integration into sectors like journalism is also poised to be transformative yet contentious. Ongoing discussions between publishers and tech companies over content licensing reflect this dynamic. The partnerships being formed, such as between OpenAI and the Financial Times, illustrate how AI can be leveraged to enhance content delivery and consumer experience, though they also underscore the need for equitable licensing agreements[17][33]. Ultimately, while predicting specific outcomes remains challenging, the trends point towards more robust regulatory oversight, evolving competitive dynamics, and continued experimentation in licensing models, all of which will shape the future landscape of AI content licensing deals with publishers.
References
[1]: OpenAI Punches Upward In Bigtime Legal Copyright Lawsuit That Will …
[2]: OpenAI Faces New Copyright Infringement Suit Amid Publisher Licensing Talks
[3]: What happens when your publisher licenses your work for AI training …
[4]: OpenAI in Talks With Dozens of Publishers to License Content
[5]: Google licenses content from news publishers under the EU Copyright …
[6]: The Financial Times inks new licensing deal with OpenAI
[7]: AI Publishing and Intellectual Property | Deloitte US
[8]: The Media Industry’s Race To License Content For AI – Forbes
[9]: How Licensing Models Can Be Used for AI Training Data – Variety
[10]: Top News Publishers Are Reportedly Planning To Sue AI Firms – Forbes
[11]: Media Companies Are Making a Huge Mistake With AI
[12]: The Pros and Cons of Publishers’ AI Licensing Deals
[13]: OpenAI’s news publisher deals reportedly top out at $5 million a year
[14]: With Data Licensing Framework in Play, Rights Holders Can Embrace AI
[15]: OpenAI signs content licensing agreement with the Financial Times
[16]: “Don’t Get Screwed Again”: News Publishers Are Banding Together in the …
[17]: Financial Times and OpenAI ink strategic partnership, including a …
[18]: All the media companies that have licensing deals with … – Mashable
[19]: OpenAI’s deals with publishers could spell trouble for rivals
[20]: Drafting a Content License Agreement | Checklist & Templates – Genie AI
[21]: Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem
[22]: Licensing research content via agreements that authorize uses of …
[23]: Rethinking Digital Content Monetization in the AI Era
[24]: The impact of AI on content licensing
[25]: Generative AI Forces Media Firms to Pick Licensing or Litigation
[26]: Litigate or License? News Publishers Struggle With Letting AI Have …
[27]: Anatomy of a contract: drafting contracts for AI solutions: key …
[28]: Generative AI Technology Can Support Book Publishing – Publishers Weekly
[29]: AI Content Licensing: All the Publisher Deals for Training AI Models
[30]: AI search engine Perplexity launches revenue sharing with six news …
[31]: Key Contract Terms and Conditions for AI Products and … – Lexology
[32]: Key Contract Terms and Conditions for AI Products and Services Part 2 …
[33]: Unleashing the Power of AI in Journalism – Navigating Content Licensing …
Table of Contents
Summary
History
Types of AI Content Licensing Deals
Direct Licensing
Commercial Aggregators
Collective Licensing
Compulsory Licensing
Voluntary Licensing
Key Players
Major Publishers
AI Companies
Industry Influencers
Recent Notable Deals
OpenAI and Financial Times
OpenAI and Axel Springer
OpenAI and News Corp
OpenAI and Associated Press
OpenAI and Dotdash Meredith
OpenAI and Le Monde & Prisa Media
OpenAI and Vox Media
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Copyright Implications
Indemnification Clauses
The Need for Legal Expertise
The Broader Ethical Debate
Economic Impact
Case Studies
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith
Google Books Fair Use Lawsuit
The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., et al.
Licensing Agreements and Strategic Moves
Technological Advancements
Criticisms and Challenges
Future Outlook
