Blanchett-Led Coalition and WME File Briefs Backing New York Times in OpenAI Copyright Case

The largest filing is a 31-page amicus brief submitted on Friday, October 30, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to TheWrap and Digital Music News. It was led by the Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by actor Cate Blanchett, and joined by talent agency CAA, the Music Artists Coalition and the National Association of Voice Actors, among others. An appendix lists supporters including Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Bette Midler, Ron Howard, Dan Levy, Madonna and Olivia Wilde.

The same day, WME, another major talent agency, filed an 18-page brief of its own, Deadline reported. The day before, SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America and the American Federation of Musicians filed a joint brief asking the court to reject a blanket fair use exemption for AI training.

The Licensing Argument

OpenAI and Microsoft have argued that licensing copyrighted works for AI training would cost too much and that there is no settled way to value training data. The Blanchett-led brief disputes both points. It argues that "the creative industries already have in place a proven infrastructure and workflows to clear rights," and cites collective licensing bodies such as BMI and the international authors' confederation CISAC, which handle rights spread across many holders through blanket licences.

"If someone wants to use my face, my voice or my image, they ask me first," Blanchett said in the filing, according to TheWrap. "Consent isn't a barrier to creativity, it is the foundation of it." Nikki Hexum, the foundation's chief executive, said the aim was to show the court "how the creative industry actually works," Digital Music News reported.

WME's brief makes a similar case. It says its position is "not that AI use of creative materials should be stopped, but that it should be licensed." It points to more than two dozen licensing deals struck between mid-2023 and mid-2024 as evidence that the market exists. Among them are News Corp's reported five-year, $250 million agreement with OpenAI and Reddit's reported $60 million deal with Google.

The joint union brief accuses OpenAI of "appropriating the work of middle- and working-class people to develop their technology," according to Deadline.

Briefs on Both Sides

The filings came in around an October 30 deadline that also drew briefs supporting OpenAI. The US Justice Department filed in September, saying the government has "a strong interest in this Court rejecting any argument" that training large language models on copyrighted texts breaks copyright law, Deadline reported. OpenAI has published a summary of filings from a dozen parties that back its fair use defence.

Representatives for OpenAI and Microsoft did not immediately respond to TheWrap's request for comment. None of the reports mentions a ruling on fair use. The amicus briefs do not decide liability or damages. They are submissions the judge may consider.

The Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging that the companies used its journalism without permission to build products that compete with it. The case has since been consolidated with suits from other news outlets and authors.

Why It Matters

Whether training counts as fair use is the main legal question hanging over the business models of AI developers. A ruling against OpenAI could turn licensing from optional deal-making into a cost every model builder has to budget for. Earlier today, The Times and three Tribune newspapers also sued Brave Software over AI scraping, and an EU court adviser said Google's Gemini may infringe press publishers' rights in some cases.