Hollywood stars and groups join New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI

A unified front for creators

The Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit backed by actress Cate Blanchett, has officially joined the legal battle against OpenAI and Microsoft. This organization works to protect the likenesses of individuals from being scraped and used by AI models without permission. They filed an amicus brief in the Southern District of New York to support the ongoing lawsuit filed by the New York Times.

The group is not acting alone in this legal maneuver. They are joined by several major Hollywood entities, including Creative Coalition on AI, the Music Artists Coalition, and the National Association of Voice Actors. The coalition also includes the prominent talent agency CAA and the organization Writer, Inc. This broad support indicates a coordinated effort across different branches of the entertainment industry.

The brief specifically supports the New York Times' request for summary judgment against the tech companies. By joining this case, these organizations are seeking to establish a legal precedent regarding how AI companies must handle copyrighted material. They want to ensure that the rights of creators are respected as AI technology becomes more integrated into daily life.

Challenging the cost argument

A central theme of the new brief is a direct rebuttal to the arguments made by OpenAI and Microsoft. The tech companies have claimed that licensing creative works for AI training is too expensive and that there is no settled way to value such training data. The Hollywood coalition argues that these claims are not supported by the current reality of the creative marketplace.

The brief asserts that the creative industries already have a proven infrastructure for clearing rights. These existing workflows allow for the management of dispersed works at a large scale and in a cost-effective manner. The group argues that if these systems already exist, the tech companies have no valid excuse for failing to negotiate for the content they use.

By highlighting these existing systems, the coalition is trying to remove the 'technical impossibility' defense. They want the court to see that licensing is a logistical matter that can be solved through standard business practices. This puts pressure on the tech companies to engage in meaningful negotiations rather than relying on the idea that the process is too complex to manage.

The weight of celebrity support

To emphasize the importance of this issue, the brief includes an appendix featuring a suite of high-profile Hollywood stars. These celebrities are lending their names to the cause to protect the integrity of creative work. The list of supporters includes well-known figures such as Madonna, Anne Hathaway, and Emma Thompson.

Other notable names included in the appendix are Ron Howard, Olivia Wilde, and Dan Levy. The inclusion of such diverse and famous personalities serves to show that the concern over AI training is widespread. It moves the conversation from a niche legal dispute to a broader cultural concern about the protection of human expression and likeness.

The involvement of these stars suggests that the industry is worried about more than just copyright. It touches on the fundamental way that human performances and creative outputs are valued. By aligning with the New York Times, these stars are signaling that the current trajectory of AI development requires strict boundaries and proper compensation for the humans who provide the source material.

Union and industry alignment

This filing comes shortly after a separate but related move by major labor unions. SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America, and the American Federation of Musicians also filed a brief against OpenAI and Microsoft. These unions are pushing back against the idea that using creative works for AI training constitutes 'fair use' under current laws.

The unions argue that allowing tech companies to bypass licensing would render the terms they recently negotiated at the bargaining table meaningless. They believe that if AI companies can use works for free, it undermines the protections won by workers in recent strikes and negotiations. The unions are focused on the practical impact on the people who actually create the content.

The collective action by both private groups and major unions creates a multi-layered legal challenge. It shows that the entertainment industry is looking for a comprehensive solution that protects both the owners of the content and the workers who produce it. The goal is to prevent a situation where the value of human creativity is eroded by automated systems.

What comes next for AI law

The legal battle in the Southern District of New York is likely to become a landmark case for the future of AI development. The court's decision on the New York Times' request for summary judgment could determine how much weight the 'fair use' defense carries for tech companies. If the court sides with the creators, it could force a massive shift in how AI models are trained.

If the court finds that the creative industries have the capacity to license content at scale, OpenAI and Microsoft may be forced to establish formal licensing agreements. This would create a new economic model where tech companies must pay a portion of their revenue to the creators whose data fuels their products. This could lead to a more standardized market for AI training data.

For the general public, the outcome of this case will influence the availability and cost of AI tools. It may also set the standard for how personal likenesses and creative works are protected online. As the litigation proceeds, the tension between technological advancement and the protection of human labor will remain a central focus for the legal system.