Cate Blanchett-backed group challenges AI licensing objections in OpenAI copyright case

A Hollywood-backed coalition is challenging the idea that licensing creative work for AI training is impractical. On October 30, the Human Consent Foundation, co-founded by Cate Blanchett, and supporters asked permission to submit a brief in the New York Times’ copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft, arguing that existing licensing systems can handle the task.

The proposed 31-page brief addresses a practical dispute within the larger legal fight: whether owners of creative works can be identified, their permission secured and their work licensed at scale. Its position is narrower than a request for a ruling against the AI companies. The foundation-led group expressly takes no position on how Judge Sidney Stein should resolve the pending motions.

The brief disputes the companies’ arguments that licensing training material is too expensive and that there is no settled way to value it. Creative industries already have systems for clearing rights across widely dispersed owners, it argues. Those systems, the coalition contends, offer a workable starting point rather than a process that must be invented for AI.

The coalition brings together organizations with different roles in that process. Alongside the foundation and Blanchett are talent agency CAA, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors and enterprise AI company Writer. The filing describes the group’s experience as spanning creative-rights licensing, representation and systems that let machines read creators’ consent choices.

The foundation itself publishes a machine-readable standard through which creators and rights holders can declare how AI systems may use their work and likeness. That provides a concrete example of the consent infrastructure the group is putting before the court. The appendix also lists prominent supporters, including Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Ron Howard and Madonna.

If someone wants to use my face, my voice or my image, they ask me first. There is a contract. There is a conversation.

Cate Blanchett, in the proposed brief, as quoted by Variety

For foundation co-founder and CEO Nikki Hexum, the argument is not simply about making transactions easier. In a statement accompanying the filing, she said creators should have a meaningful choice as the AI data-licensing market grows. That includes choosing not to participate, rather than treating the existence of a licensing system as automatic permission to use someone’s work.

OpenAI’s response rests on a different proposition: that the challenged use can be lawful without permission. An OpenAI spokesperson directed Variety to an October 30 company blog post highlighting briefs supporting its fair-use position. Fair use is the exception in U.S. copyright law that permits copyrighted material to be used without authorization in certain circumstances.

Both sides have asked Stein to decide without a trial whether training AI models on copyrighted works without a license qualifies as fair use. The proceeding combines the Times’ lawsuit with other claims, including those brought by book authors. The Times originally sued in December 2023, alleging that OpenAI scraped thousands of its articles without permission.

Other creative-industry groups have taken a more explicit position on that legal question. On October 30, the RIAA, NMPA and other music organizations separately sought to submit a brief backing the plaintiffs and asking the court to reject fair use for training on their works. Unlike the foundation-led filing, that brief directly requests an outcome. As of November 2, Stein had not ruled on the competing requests.