Hollywood stars and agencies file brief in NYT-OpenAI lawsuit

The Human Consent Foundation joins the fight

The Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit organization supported by actress Cate Blanchett, has officially entered the legal battle against OpenAI and Microsoft. The group filed an amicus brief in the Southern District of New York as part of the ongoing lawsuit initiated by the New York Times. This move signals a coordinated effort by high-profile figures to protect individual likenesses from unauthorized scraping by artificial intelligence models.

The brief is supported by a wide array of Hollywood heavyweights and industry organizations. Notable stars who joined the cause include Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Madonna, and Ron Howard. By lending their names to the filing, these figures are highlighting the concerns of creators who fear their identities and works are being used without permission or compensation.

The primary goal of the foundation is to ensure that individuals have a meaningful choice regarding how their data is used. They want to make sure that as the market for AI data licensing expands, the people who actually create the value are not left behind. The group emphasizes that they are not trying to create new rules from nothing but rather want the tech industry to respect existing boundaries.

Challenging the cost of licensing

A central point of contention in the lawsuit involves how much it costs to license creative works for AI training. OpenAI and Microsoft have argued that licensing such content is cost-prohibitive and that there is no settled way to value the training data. The Human Consent Foundation argues that these claims are factually incorrect based on current market conditions.

The 31-page brief asserts that the creative industries already possess a proven infrastructure for clearing rights at scale. These existing workflows allow for the management of dispersed works efficiently and cost-effectively. The group argues that because these systems already exist, the tech companies cannot claim that licensing is an impossible hurdle for their business models.

By highlighting these existing systems, the group aims to show the court that there is a functional market for data licensing. They want to prove that the technology to handle these rights is already in place. This suggests that the tech companies could have negotiated these rights as part of their development process rather than relying on unauthorized scraping.

Industry-wide cooperation

The filing is not an isolated move by a single nonprofit but represents a broad coalition of Hollywood interests. Major agencies and professional organizations, such as CAA and the Music Artists Coalition, have joined the brief. These entities represent the backbone of the entertainment industry, providing the legal and logistical support needed to fight large tech corporations.

Other groups involved include the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc, and the Creative Coalition on AI. The diversity of these groups shows that the concern spans across different types of creative work, from voice acting to writing to music. This collective front suggests that the industry views the unauthorized use of data as a systemic threat to their livelihoods.

The coalition's involvement underscores the importance of the legal outcome for the future of entertainment. If the court finds that the tech companies' actions do not constitute fair use, it could set a precedent for how all creative content is handled in the AI era. The group wants to ensure that the humans who create the work are protected from being bypassed by automated systems.

Aligning with labor unions

The filing by the Human Consent Foundation arrived just one day after a significant move by major labor unions. SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America, and the American Federation of Musicians also filed their own brief against OpenAI and Microsoft. These unions are urging the court to recognize that the tech companies' actions could undermine the terms agreed upon during recent labor negotiations.

The unions argue that if the court rules that AI training is a form of fair use, it would render the terms of their bargaining table moot. They believe that allowing tech companies to use work without permission would harm the people who actually create the content. This creates a unified front between the individual stars, the agencies, and the organized labor groups representing the workers.

The shared goal across all these filings is to establish clear boundaries for AI development. Both the unions and the private groups argue that the current path taken by tech companies ignores the rights of creators. They are seeking a legal framework that acknowledges the value of human creativity and requires a license for its use in training models.

What comes next for AI data

The next phase of the litigation will likely focus on the specific mechanics of the licensing infrastructure mentioned in the brief. The court will need to determine if the existing workflows used by the entertainment industry are sufficient to handle the massive scale of data required by AI companies. This could lead to a more structured market where AI companies must seek out licenses from established bodies.

The outcome of this brief could dictate how the market for AI data licensing grows in the coming years. If the court sides with the creative groups, it could lead to a shift where tech companies are forced to engage in licensing agreements rather than relying on scraping. This would create a new economic model where creators receive a share of the value generated by AI models.

As the case moves forward, the focus will remain on whether new technology can respect the choices of human creators. The group's goal is to ensure that the choice not to participate in AI training is a valid and protected option. The legal battle will ultimately decide how much power tech companies have over the creative works that have defined human culture.