I've been following this discussion over on Apartment Therapy today. The NY Times wants AT to stop using their images which basically means that AT probably won't be posting much about future NYT stories.
As a blog and newspaper writer most of you know I was once a regular contributor to AT:SF I can easily understand both sides here. But I tend to agree with AT commenter "18percentgrey":
Forget about the warm & fuzzies. It's not like you're not in business to make a profit here. It's business. They pay the reporters & expenses to create original content, and blogs take it, and post it, claiming it benefits the Times. ... Blogs that have their own advertising should pay for the content they take from other entities - plain and simple. Either legitimately license the material, or create your own original content.
When I was writing for AT:SF, one major concern was whether another AT city site might scoop me. Or, even worse, if a subject for a pending post was already covered ad nauseam by other design blogs. The only way to 100 percent avoid either scenario was to come up with completely original content: get out there and see what's in the local shops; track down people for house tours; interview people yourself, instead of excerpting another magazine/newspaper/website's interview; make contacts in the design community to stay on top of events.
And you know what? It wasn't such a bad thing. So maybe, in the end, losing the NYT content will make AT even stronger.