Cate Blanchett-Backed Group and Hollywood Stars Back Times in OpenAI Fight

A 31-page amicus brief filed late Friday in the Southern District of New York argues that Hollywood already licenses creative works at scale — and that OpenAI and Microsoft's claims otherwise are "mischaracterizations."

The filing comes from the Human Consent Foundation (HCF), the nonprofit backed by Cate Blanchett that campaigns against unauthorized scraping of individuals' likenesses by AI models. It was joined by CAA, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc, and the Creative Coalition on AI.

The brief targets the central defense in the New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which the publisher filed in December 2023, alleging ChatGPT's creator scraped thousands of its news articles without permission. The Times moved for summary judgment last month.

What does the brief actually claim?

OpenAI and Microsoft have told the court that licensing creative works for AI training would be too expensive and that no settled method exists for valuing training data. The Hollywood coalition says its own track record refutes both points.

"Defendants have argued that licensing creative works for AI training is cost-prohibitive," the brief reads. "Defendants also claim there is no settled means of valuing training data. The facts demonstrate otherwise. The creative industries already have in place a proven infrastructure and workflows to clear rights for dispersed works at scale and cost-effectively."

That claim carries weight only if the mechanisms exist — and the brief's appendix is designed to show they do. It lists a roster of supporters including Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Dan Levy, Ron Howard, Madonna, Olivia Wilde, Ariana DeBose, Bette Midler, Helen Mirren, Julia Roberts, Robert De Niro, Scarlett Johansson, Rosario Dawson, Rian Johnson, Paul Feig, Vince Gilligan, Dave Eggers and the Stan Lee Foundation, among others.

HCF co-founder and CEO Nikki Hexum said in a statement that the filing was intended to show the court "how the creative industry actually works and acknowledge the solutions that have been built and are continuing to develop for this new digital era."

"Our goal is to ensure that as the market for AI data licensing grows, the humans who create the value in that market are protected and have a meaningful choice," Hexum said. "We are not starting from scratch. There is already a functioning market and infrastructure for licensing creative work. We just need to ensure that new AI technology respects those boundaries and choices, including the choice not to participate."

Who is behind the Human Consent Foundation?

Hexum and Blanchett founded the organization as RSL Media in May. It launched a registry in June that lets individuals log what permissions they give AI models to scrape their likenesses. Steven Soderbergh also backs the foundation, and both he and Blanchett submitted statements for the brief arguing that the principle of permission should not change in the AI era.

"I've been working in film and theater for over 30 years, and in that time, the principle has never changed," Blanchett said in the brief. "If someone wants to use my face, my voice or my image, they ask me first. There is a contract. There is a conversation. This isn't a new idea or a complicated legal framework, it is simply how we treat each other in this industry. Consent isn't a barrier to creativity, it is the foundation of it."

The skeptic's caveat: a functioning licensing market for film and music rights does not automatically settle what a fair price is for AI training data at the scale of models like ChatGPT. The brief asserts the infrastructure exists; it does not claim the pricing question is solved. That gap is where OpenAI's defense will press hardest.

How did OpenAI and Microsoft respond?

An OpenAI spokesperson pointed to a blog post published Friday highlighting briefs from several groups — including the U.S. government, as of last month — supporting the company's position that its scraping is protected by the fair use doctrine, which permits use of copyrighted work without the rights holder's permission in select cases.

"Experts and leaders across a wide range of fields have recognized that fair use is a win-win that benefits everyone, and have shared their perspectives with the Court in filing briefs in support of fair use," the post reads.

Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.

What does this change for the Times case?

The filing landed one day after SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America and the American Federation of Musicians filed their own brief against OpenAI and Microsoft, urging the court to reject a fair use ruling they said "would render moot the terms the unions and the industry agreed to at the bargaining table."

"It would harm not just the copyright owners, but the people who create the work," their Thursday brief reads.

For now, none of this decides anything. But with summary judgment pending, the court now has before it a coordinated argument from performers, writers, musicians, agents and a major publisher — all insisting the licensing market exists and the only thing missing is consent.