Global publishers form SPUR coalition to protect content from AI misuse

MUMBAI: Publishers are putting their content rights in black and white as artificial intelligence rewrites the rules of the news business. More than 80 publishers across over 20 countries have joined the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights (SPUR) coalition to establish common standards for tracking how AI companies use copyrighted content, negotiating licences and securing compensation.

The latest expansion brings The New York Times, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and The Economist into the coalition, alongside more than 40 publishers. The Atlantic and Brazil’s National Association of Newspapers are among the other new members. Founding members include the Financial Times, BBC and Associated Press.

Launched in February and funded entirely by its members, SPUR is developing industry-wide standards and technical systems to help publishers monitor the use of their material and establish licensing arrangements. The initiative comes as news organisations grapple with two pressures: AI systems using their work to generate answers and shrinking referral traffic as search platforms increasingly respond to queries directly instead of sending users to original websites.

At the heart of SPUR’s work is its Content Telemetry Standard, designed to standardise how AI agents record and report their use of media content. The aim is to make content consumption by AI systems more visible and provide a clearer basis for licensing and compensation.

For publishers, the concern extends beyond whether an AI system reproduces an article word for word. They also want greater clarity on how their material is accessed and used to power AI products, and whether commercial agreements adequately reflect that use.

Common technical standards could give publishers a more consistent way to identify usage, negotiate licences and exercise their rights. However, establishing a tracking framework does not by itself guarantee payment or settle disputes over whether particular uses of copyrighted material are lawful.

The coalition’s approach adds a collective industry response to a debate that has increasingly moved into courtrooms. Publishers around the world have pursued legal action over the alleged unauthorised use of their work to train or operate AI systems, raising questions about permission, commercial exploitation and the boundaries of copyright law.

The New York Times has pursued legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft over the alleged unauthorised use of its content. Earlier this month, USA Today and several newspapers owned by it also sued OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement. OpenAI and Microsoft face other claims from authors and news organisations over their use of copyrighted material.

New York Times head of strategic partnerships and chief of staff Rebecca Grossman-Cohen said intellectual property protection and technological advancement could coexist, reflecting the coalition’s position that AI development need not come at the expense of publishers’ rights.

The copyright debate is unfolding alongside a shift in how audiences find journalism online. Google organic-search referrals to more than 2,500 websites declined 33 per cent globally between November 2024 and November 2025, according to Chartbeat data cited in the Reuters Institute’s Journalism, Media and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 report.

The decline highlights the changing distribution environment for publishers, although the data does not establish how much of the fall was directly caused by AI-generated search results.

As search platforms increasingly deliver answers within their own interfaces, publishers face the prospect of their reporting informing digital responses without necessarily bringing readers back to their websites. That creates a commercial challenge alongside the copyright question: how can publishers retain value when their content travels beyond their own platforms?

In India, the debate is playing out in the Delhi High Court, where Asian News International (ANI) has challenged OpenAI over its alleged use of copyrighted news content.

ANI filed its lawsuit in 2024, alleging that OpenAI used its material without authorisation to train and operate ChatGPT, reproduced its content and attributed statements to the agency that it had not made. The agency sought restrictions on the storage, reproduction, publication and use of its copyrighted works.

In July, the court declined to grant interim relief, observing that storing material for AI training did not appear to constitute copyright infringement at that stage and that an injunction could affect OpenAI and the public interest. ANI subsequently appealed, arguing that India’s Copyright Act provides for fair dealing rather than the broader fair-use framework invoked in some international debates. It also questioned the commercial use of copyrighted material at scale.

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench issued notice to OpenAI on ANI’s appeal in September 2026. The next hearing is scheduled for 8 December 2026, according to the case tracker.

The proceedings could contribute to the legal interpretation of how existing copyright provisions apply to AI training and the use of news content by generative AI systems. SPUR, meanwhile, is pursuing a parallel route through common technical standards and licensing mechanisms across markets.

For publishers, the challenge is no longer just about who owns a story. It is also about knowing where that story goes, how it is used and whether its creators are compensated when AI turns journalism into an input for the next answer.