Hollywood stars and nonprofits join NYT lawsuit against OpenAI

A unified creative front

The Human Consent Foundation has officially joined the legal battle between The New York Times and tech giants OpenAI and Microsoft. This nonprofit organization, which receives support from actress Cate Blanchett, filed an amicus brief in the Southern District of New York. The brief serves as a formal submission to provide the court with additional information and perspectives on the case.

The filing is not a solo effort by the foundation. It is backed by several of the most influential organizations in the entertainment industry. These include the Creative Artists Agency, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc., and the Creative Coalition on AI. This broad coalition suggests a systemic concern across various creative sectors.

The brief also features a list of high-profile endorsements from Hollywood stars. The list includes well-known figures such as Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Dan Levy, Ron Howard, and Madonna. By involving these names, the foundation aims to highlight the personal and professional stakes for the individuals whose likenesses and works are being used to train AI models.

Challenging the tech defense

At the heart of the legal dispute is how OpenAI and Microsoft justify their use of copyrighted material. The tech companies have argued that they could not adequately secure the rights for the content they used to train their models. They have characterized the process of licensing such vast amounts of data as being practically impossible or cost-prohibitive.

The Human Consent Foundation explicitly disputes these claims in its 31-page filing. The foundation argues that the tech companies are misrepresenting the reality of the creative industry. They point out that an active licensing market already exists for creative works. This market provides a framework for identifying, valuing, and clearing rights for content across a wide landscape of media.

Nikki Hexum, the co-founder and CEO of the Human Consent Foundation, explained that the brief aims to show the court the operational realities of the industry. She noted that the infrastructure for licensing is already established and functional. The foundation argues that there are practical methods in place for valuing training data, which contradicts the defendants' narrative of impracticality.

The principle of consent

The Human Consent Foundation was originally founded as RSL Media before launching a registry for individuals. This registry allows people to specify exactly what permissions they grant for AI models to use their likenesses. The organization believes that the principle of obtaining consent must remain a constant, even as technology continues to advance rapidly.

The foundation emphasizes that creators should have the right to choose whether or not they want to participate in the AI market. Nikki Hexum stated that technology must respect the choices of creators, including the option to opt out. This focus on individual agency is a core component of their legal strategy.

Cate Blanchett, who supports the foundation, echoed this sentiment within the brief. She noted that consent is the foundation of creativity. This quote highlights the argument that respecting ownership does not hinder innovation but rather provides the necessary structure for a healthy creative economy.

Broader industry implications

This legal action follows a series of similar concerns expressed by major labor unions. Recently, the actors' union, the writers' guild, and the musicians' federation expressed worries about the current trajectory of AI. They are concerned that the tech companies' claims of fair use could undermine the specific contractual agreements they negotiated with their members.

The unions warned that if the courts accept the tech companies' arguments, it could have a negative impact on both copyright owners and the workers who produce the content. They argue that these claims threaten the stability of the creative economy. The current lawsuit is a high-stakes battle to determine how copyright will function in an age where AI can generate content based on existing works.

The legal battle began in December 2023 when The New York Times accused OpenAI and Microsoft of scraping thousands of news articles without permission. The Times recently filed for summary judgment, which is a request for the court to rule on the case without a full trial. This escalation signals that the dispute over the future of copyright is reaching a critical turning point.

What comes next for creators

The outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for how AI companies interact with all forms of copyrighted material. If the court finds that the tech companies' claims of impracticality are unfounded, it could force a shift toward mandatory licensing models. This would mean that AI developers might have to pay for the data they use to train their systems, similar to how they license music or film content today.

For creators and performers, the success of this amicus brief could mean more protection for their likenesses and artistic output. It reinforces the idea that the existing market infrastructure can be used to regulate new technology. The foundation's registry could become a key tool for individuals looking to manage their digital identities in an increasingly automated world.

The legal proceedings in the Southern District of New York will continue to monitor how the court balances technological progress with intellectual property rights. The involvement of major Hollywood entities suggests that the creative community is prepared for a long and complex legal fight. The focus remains on ensuring that the burgeoning market for AI data licensing respects the boundaries and choices of the original creators.