Entertainment organizations backed The New York Times in its copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft.
Why it matters: The filing extends the dispute beyond publishers to performers, musicians, writers, voice actors and talent agencies. Its licensing argument could influence negotiations over AI training rights, but the brief does not itself create a licensing mandate.
- A 31-page amicus brief supports The New York Times' copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft.
- The Human Consent Foundation says agencies, registries, collective-management organizations and contracts can administer permissions at scale.
- The coalition named in the filing includes Creative Artists Agency, Music Artists Coalition, National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc. and Creative Coalition on AI.
- The case is before Judge Sidney H. Stein in the Southern District of New York.
A Cate Blanchett-backed nonprofit and entertainment organizations have joined a brief urging a federal court to consider existing licensing systems in The New York Times' copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft.
The 31-page amicus brief argues that the defendants' position - that creative rights cannot reasonably be cleared for AI training - mischaracterizes how entertainment rights are managed. The Human Consent Foundation says agencies, registries, collective-management organizations and contract-based permissions provide a foundation for handling permissions at scale.
The brief addresses the four factors in the governing fair-use test: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted works, the amount used and the effect on potential markets. It does not establish that the court has resolved or is currently weighing those factors.
OpenAI's stated position is that model training is a transformative, non-expressive analytical use that does not substitute for or harm markets for original works. The materials provided do not establish Microsoft's separate position.
The coalition named in the filing includes Creative Artists Agency, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc. and the Creative Coalition on AI. Its participation broadens the dispute beyond publishers and authors to performers, voice actors, musicians, writers and agencies.
The foundation's broader mission includes machine-readable permissions for works, identities, voices, likenesses, characters and marks. Its draft standard contemplates declarations marking uses as allowed, allowed with terms or prohibited.
If the court credits that licensing argument, one possible consequence is greater leverage for rights holders in negotiations over training-data licenses, compensation systems and registries. The brief would not itself make licensing mandatory or create a universal right to control likenesses. Copyright and identity rights can arise under different laws, including state publicity and contract law.
By the numbers
- 31 pages - length of the amicus brief
- 4 factors - elements of the governing fair-use test
Yes, but: The filing is an advocacy document from organizations supporting The New York Times, not a ruling on fair use or a determination that licensing is legally required. The materials provided also do not establish Microsoft's separate arguments.