When generative AI was new, the issue of how it worked with copyright law was poorly understood. Over the previous two decades it was generally taken as a given that the mass indexing done by search engines like Google was a necessary part of being on the internet. Google wasn’t reproducing the content—just showing users a headline and a link—so it always functioned more like a distributor than a republisher.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/media-copilot.png”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/fe289316-bc4f-44ef-96bf-148b3d8578c1_1440x1440.png”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to The Media Copilot\u003C\/strong\u003E”,”dek”:”Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for The Media Copilot. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/\u0022\u003Emediacopilot.substack.com\u003C\/a\u003E”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”SIGN UP”,”ctaUrl”:”https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#f5f5f5″,”text”:”#000000″,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#000000″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91453847,”imageMobileId”:91453848,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}
AI search engines (a.k.a. answer engines) work differently, of course. They ingest content, summarize it, and merge it with other information relevant to the query to build an answer. Often that’s sufficient, negating any need to interact with the originator of the information—convenient for the user, much less so for the publisher.
Worth, revealed in the answer
The fact that the user got what they needed, though, underscores the value of the information in the first place, and the evidence of that value is usually right in the answer in the form of a citation—a named source, with a link. And while the underlying issue has inspired several lawsuits and existential panic in the media industry, there’s a growing consensus that what AI does to content has more in common with syndication than distribution.
Consensus is nice; enforceable consensus is better. And that just arrived in the form of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a UK regulatory board, coming out to say that Google must provide publishers a way to opt out of AI Overviews, the summaries that appear at the top of search results. Up until now, Google used the same bot for search indexing and AI crawling; opt out of one, and you opt out of both. Going forward, publishers will be able to choose whether or not to appear, and Google is forbidden from punishing the search rankings of sites that choose AI invisibility.
It’s one ruling from one regulatory body in one country. But it’s real leverage, and Google appears to be compliant: The company spun the news into a blog post promising publishers “new opportunities with generative AI in search.” While it’s important not to overstate the impact of what’s happening, there is an opportunity for publishers to show the value of their content to AI systems. And they should take it, because AI systems are rapidly becoming their primary audience.
Traffic was the old war
The old playbook of visibility in Google was all about clicks: You would publish articles, optimize them for SEO, and rack up clicks. While data does indicate that people who click through from AI search are more engaged, it’s tiny fraction of what came before: TollBit data has logged scrape-to-referral ratios of 179:1 for OpenAI, 369:1 for Perplexity, and 8,692:1 for Anthropic. Digital Trends counted 4.1 million bot scrapes against 4,200 human referrals in a single week.
And the human portion continues to shrink. Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince said recently that bot traffic has passed human traffic for the first time, 57.4% of requests versus 42.6%. The crossover came 18 months ahead of his own forecast, with agentic traffic growing eight times faster than human activity.
All those bots need information—both to answer human queries and as context for agents. The game is no longer, “How do I get people to click;” it’s “How do I get bots to pay for my content.” A high-quality archive stops being bait for traffic and becomes a data supply. The user shifts from a reader to a machine working for one.
Who that user is and the AI they’re using are important factors in the value exchange. Someone who is crossing a desert will value a glass of water differently than someone hiking near a mountain stream. If you have a corpus of highly specific information about an industry, a general chatbot might value it lightly (though never at zero). But a specialized service that also serves your exact audience will certainly value it more.
In an ideal world, a publisher would have levers that strictly control access. Optimize where visibility helps: make the content easy for bots to read, parse and cite via GEO, and learn the AI funnel the way the industry once learned the search funnel. Where the value is high, offer bots a paywall and aggressively block unauthorized crawlers.
That scraping data actually helps demonstrate how valuable the content is. And it’s not just theoretical: In its negotiations with OpenAI, Time pointed to TollBit data to secure a licensing deal. The market is essentially splitting into a paid lane (OpenAI’s licensing deals) and a litigated lane (CNN, NYT, News Corp against Perplexity). The UK opt-out hands the litigators more leverage, which could lead to higher prices in the paid lane.
The off switch is really a price list
None of this is automatic. It’s what could happen if media companies seize the moment, and seizing it starts with a change in the question. It stops being how much traffic AI sends and becomes how much each AI path to your reader is worth, and what you charge to be on it. Answer that well and the off switch becomes a price list.
The catch is timing. The opt-out exists because the politics are hot right now, with regulators, courts and even the Vatican pushing the same way at once, and that kind of pressure never lasts. If publishers wait for someone else to set the rates, someone else will, and the leverage that took years to build gets spent on nothing.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/media-copilot.png”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/fe289316-bc4f-44ef-96bf-148b3d8578c1_1440x1440.png”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to The Media Copilot\u003C\/strong\u003E”,”dek”:”Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for The Media Copilot. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/\u0022\u003Emediacopilot.substack.com\u003C\/a\u003E”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”SIGN UP”,”ctaUrl”:”https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#f5f5f5″,”text”:”#000000″,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#000000″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91453847,”imageMobileId”:91453848,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}
Source link
