How will news publishers combat AI stealing their revenue and their journalism?

News publishers today are passing through one of the most sensitive periods of transformation since the beginning of the digital age. The challenge is no longer limited to declining advertising revenues, shrinking print circulation, or competition from social media platforms. A new and more complex challenge has emerged—one that strikes at the heart of a newspaper’s most valuable asset: its archive. For decades, newspaper archives represented far more than a collection of old articles. They served as a repository of institutional memory, a source of verified information, and a record of political, social, economic, and cultural developments. Researchers, journalists, academics, and decision-makers have long relied on these archives as trusted references. Today, however, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has transformed these archives into a new kind of resource: raw material for training powerful AI models capable of extracting information, synthesising knowledge, and reproducing content in new forms. Economic implications This transformation has generated growing concern within the media industry. Publishers argue that vast quantities of journalistic material have been collected and used to train AI systems without explicit permission and, in many cases, without compensation. As a result, content that required years of reporting, editing, verification, and investment can be absorbed into technological systems that generate answers and summaries without directing users back to the original source. The economic implications are significant. Newspapers have traditionally relied on a combination of subscriptions, advertising revenues, and the long-term value of their archives. Yet when readers receive immediate answers from AI-powered systems, they may no longer feel the need to visit the original publication, subscribe to its services, or engage with its content directly. In such a scenario, the newspaper bears the costs of producing journalism, while others capture an increasing share of the value generated from that work. The concern extends beyond economics. Advances in generative AI have enabled systems to summarise articles, emulate writing styles, and reproduce information with remarkable fluency. While such capabilities offer undeniable benefits for users, they also raise important questions about intellectual property, attribution, and the future identity of journalistic institutions. Where does legitimate use end and unauthorised appropriation begin? The answer remains the subject of intense legal and policy debates around the world. Concern to action Major international publishers have already moved from concern to action. The New York Times filed a landmark lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that millions of its articles were used to train AI systems without authorisation. Other organisations, including The Guardian, CNN, Reuters, and The Washington Post, have restricted or blocked AI crawlers from accessing portions of their content. In Europe, media groups such as Axel Springer and Le Monde have sought licensing arrangements intended to ensure compensation for the use of journalistic archives. News Corp has likewise warned that artificial intelligence companies risk benefiting from decades of journalistic investment without adequately sharing the resulting value. These developments reflect a broader shift in how publishers view artificial intelligence. What was once regarded primarily as a technological innovation is increasingly being viewed as a force capable of reshaping the economics of information itself. The debate is no longer confined to questions of technology; it now encompasses issues of ownership, value creation, intellectual property, and the sustainability of professional journalism. In response, many newspapers have begun reassessing the role of their archives. Increasingly, archives are being treated not merely as historical records but as strategic economic assets requiring protection and management. Some organisations have introduced restrictions on access, limited automated scraping, or reconsidered the extent to which their historical content should remain openly available online. Such measures are not without consequences. Restricting access to archives may complicate the work of researchers, historians, and journalists who depend on historical records for verification and analysis. It may also create gaps in the digital historical record. Nevertheless, many publishers argue that the greater risk lies in allowing valuable archives to become freely exploitable resources for technology companies without clear legal frameworks governing their use. Focus on Arab media sector For the Arab media sector, the issue carries particular importance. Arab newspapers possess extensive archives documenting decades of political, economic, cultural, and social developments across the region. These archives represent a unique intellectual and historical resource. Ye