Social media enthusiasts can now access real-time, trustworthy news through their favorite Meta platforms, be it Instagram, WhatsApp or Facebook. These platform tweaks come hot on the heels of the latest licensing deal between Meta and Reuters, as reported by Axios.
The agreement is one of many emerging licensing deals giving AI companies access to use publishers’ content. Still, it’s the first such deal Meta has struck with a news publisher.
What happens after these contract are signed depends on the specifics of each agreement. These deals typically include using news publishers’ content as reference points for user queries in tools like ChatGPT, often with promises of citation linking back to the original websites, and occasionally featuring the publisher’s logo. News outlets also often gain access to AI technology to develop their products.
Such deals have been gathering steam in 2024, with figures for deals involving OpenAI reportedly ranging between $1 million and $5 million. The deal’s scale ultimately rests on the negotiation between both sides over the perceived value of quality-assured news content.
Bedfellows and Adversaries
However, not all media outlets agree to enter these negotiations, and this year has increasingly polarized the industry into two camps: the AI bedfellows and the adversaries—or, as the PressGazette describes them, the “suers and signers.”
The long list of deal-makers includes international outlets such as the Financial Times, The Atlantic, Condé Nast, Time, Vox, News Corp, Fortune, Axel Springer, Der Spiegel, Entrepreneur, The Texas Tribune, and WordPress owner Automattic, among many others.
The list of suers is shorter. Most famously, The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, describing the situation as “automated chatbots that now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information,” accusing them of “free-riding” on The Times’ investment in journalism.
In addition to The Times’ legal action for copyright infringement, other lawsuits include News Corp against Perplexity (with Forbes threatening legal action), Getty Images against Stability AI, and Mumsnet, The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet against OpenAI and Microsoft.
Media Industry Grievances: AI Deals, Misrepresentation, and Content Rights
For many in the media industry, especially news creators, the list of grievances against these increasingly popular deals with AI vendors is long. AI developers have been faulted on three main fronts:
Primarily, for undermining the existing news business model. According to Frank Pine, executive editor of Media News Group and Tribune Publishing, “These companies are building AI products clearly intended to supplant news publishers by repurposing purloined content and delivering it to their users.”
The New York Times stated that that using its content in chatbots “threatens to divert readers, including current and potential subscribers, away from The Times, thereby reducing subscription, advertising, licensing, and affiliate revenues.”
Adding insult to injury, media houses have found instances where their lifted content has been misrepresented. Mr. Pine warns about the risk of AI models: “They misattribute bogus information to our news publications, damaging our credibility.” For instance, “The Mercury News has never recommended injecting disinfectants to treat COVID, and The Denver Post did not publish research claiming smoking cures asthma.”
Finally, these deals have raised concerns among journalists about the erosion of their rights. While media companies may receive payments for licensing content to AI firms, individual journalists do not directly benefit. They risk having their work used without appropriate compensation, further undervaluing their contributions and potential long-term opportunities.
Why Media Business Models Shape the AI Licensing Divide
The rift between media houses that sign or sue is deeply shaped by the economics of their business models.
Leading news outlets that diversified their revenue streams beyond advertising—often by expanding into licensing, digital and print subscriptions, events, grant funding, and business services—now have a distinct leverage in negotiations. This hybrid approach acts as a buffer, protecting them from the potential loss of traffic to AI-driven products.
Yet, only a few media companies are primarily sustained by providing direct access to content. Among them are heavyweights like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. For instance, according to a recent press release, over 68% of The New York Times’s 2023 revenue came from subscriptions, with just around 20% derived from advertising. Similarly, for Dow Jones, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, approximately 80% of 2024 revenue comes from consumer and enterprise subscriptions, as reported by Axios.
Newsrooms with substantial archives, especially video content, may also provide valuable access to AI firms, as this content is less accessible to scraping bots. Scraping video content poses distinct challenges, requiring scrapers to navigate non-standardized storage, manage higher computational demands, and overcome additional licensing protections.
Wins for Accountability and New Business Models in AI-Media Partnerships
On The Last Human Voice podcast, Dr. Mathilde Pavis, UNESCO’S expert consultant on AI impact , cautiously notes a few positive shifts emerging from these deals.
In addition to “training with consent,” these deals also include “requirements of attribution” and “traceability of data provenance.” This can be seen as a win for users, allowing them to trace information back to its source, often through a link or a publication’s logo.
This starkly contrasts the previous statements by the AI developers about the “black box” nature of many AI algorithms, where data sources were often untraceable.
Another shift is the emergence of revenue-sharing business models. For instance, giants like the Financial Times, Axel Springer, The Atlantic, and Fortune (along with Universal Music Group) are licensing content to startups like Protata.ai. This generative AI startup claims it can “accurately attribute revenue shares” from chatbot subscriptions and then distribute revenue to content owners.
Similarly, Perplexity.ai is shaping up a revenue-sharing model with media clients. Publishers are promised a share of revenue generated by interactions referencing their content. Current partners include Time, Der Spiegel, Fortune, Entrepreneur, The Texas Tribune and WordPress owner Automattic.
Where to Next? The Road Ahead in AI, Copyright and Content Rights
In many ways, 2024 has established the battle lines. If last year taught us anything, it’s that the unexpected is the new normal.
Speculation already surrounds the impact of AI-enhanced search functions, like Google’s expanded AI Search Overview and OpenAI’s SearchGPT, on publisher traffic.
The divide between media camps may become even more pronounced as these developments accelerate. We are also awaiting the outcome of The New York Times lawsuit, which could set a new precedent for fair use under copyright law and potentially reshape how copyrighted material is used in the AI landscape.
Those in the media world, navigating these shifting alliances more than many other industries, have truly felt the AI-related disruption and the pressure to act quickly or risk missing out. As Time COO Mark Howard puts it, “The media industry has always been a series of Faustian bargains. We’ve been doing this since digital media really launched.
“But these companies are very well-funded,” he added. “The opportunities out there are tremendous, if we can capitalize on them right now.”
