What AI owes the people who make content, and how to make sure they get paid. Each issue breaks down the deals, lawsuits and pricing moves shaping content’s value to AI, so publishers, labels and rights holders can protect what their work is worth.
USA Today Co. seeks more than $250 million from OpenAI over AI training. Why publishers need their own record of what was copied before the next lawsuit.
Read the issue →The US Copyright Office wants to size music streaming fraud. Why the industry needs one shared evidence standard by November 23, not a set of competing counts.
Read the issue →Publishers call AI licensing deals secret and lumpy as Google’s referral share falls. Why mid-size publishers need their own record of use to price deals.
Read the issue →The Third Circuit says training AI on Westlaw headnotes is not fair use and counts AI licensing as a market publishers can lose. What that means for deals.
Read the issue →Suno says it has “far beyond” two million subscribers but shares no figures. Why rights holders should demand audited usage reporting before licensing.
Read the issue →Indie publishers IMPEL and IMPF want songs valued at least equal to recordings in AI deals. Why attribution, not early pilot terms, should set the split.
Read the issue →AI companies self-report how they use publisher content. FuzeBox AI is helping SPUR give publishers a way to verify those reports independently.
Read the issue →India’s first OpenAI publisher deals, reportedly $5M and $3M a year, now set the rate card. Why publishers in the queue need their own usage data first.
Read the issue →Qobuz now tags AI tracks and found 60% of their streams fraudulent. Why detection has become a royalty control, and who gets to audit the platform’s call.
Read the issue →Google’s pay-per-value AI pilot makes content grounding a billable event, but Google alone measures, values and pays. Why publishers need their own meter.
Read the issue →
