Variety and TheWrap: Cate Blanchett and Hollywood Stars Back the New York Times in Its Copyright Fight With OpenAI

Hollywood has picked a side in one of the biggest copyright cases of the AI era. The Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit backed by Cate Blanchett, filed a friend of the court brief on Friday supporting the New York Times in its lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, Variety and TheWrap reported.

An appendix to the filing lists a long roster of famous supporters, including Anne Hathaway, Emma Thompson, Ron Howard, Madonna, Robert De Niro, Julia Roberts and Scarlett Johansson. What follows sorts out what the filing actually says, who is behind it and what it does and does not change.

What Was Filed

According to Variety, the 31 page brief was filed in the Southern District of New York late Friday. The foundation was joined by talent agency CAA, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc and the Creative Coalition on AI, the outlet reported.

The core argument is about money and logistics. OpenAI and Microsoft have argued that licensing creative works to train AI would be too costly and that there is no settled way to value training data. The brief pushes back directly. "Defendants have argued that licensing creative works for AI training is cost-prohibitive," it reads, according to Variety. "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."

In other words, the entertainment business says it already clears music, footage and likenesses every day, and it sees no reason AI companies cannot do the same.

Who Is Behind It

Variety reported that the Human Consent Foundation was founded in May, under the name RSL Media, by Blanchett and its chief executive Nikki Hexum. In June it launched a registry where people can record what permissions they give AI models to use their likenesses. Director Steven Soderbergh also backs the group, according to the outlet.

Blanchett offered a statement in the brief itself. "If someone wants to use my face, my voice or my image, they ask me first. There is a contract. There is a conversation," she said, as quoted by Variety and TheWrap. "Consent isn't a barrier to creativity, it is the foundation of it."

Hexum said in a statement that the goal was to show the court "how the creative industry actually works," and added, "We are not starting from scratch. There is already a functioning market and infrastructure for licensing creative work," according to Variety.

Other names listed as supporters, per Variety, include Bette Midler, Helen Mirren, Dan Levy, Olivia Wilde, Rosario Dawson, Ariana DeBose, Rian Johnson, Greg Berlanti, Vince Gilligan and Paul Feig.

The Other Side

OpenAI did not stay quiet. A spokesperson pointed Variety to a company blog post, published Friday, that highlights briefs from several groups supporting its position that training on copyrighted work is protected by fair use. "Experts and leaders across a wide range of fields have recognized that fair use is a win-win that benefits everyone," the post said, according to Variety. Microsoft did not respond to Variety's request for comment.

The Bigger Picture

This filing is one of several. Variety and TheWrap both noted that SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America and the American Federation of Musicians filed their own brief a day earlier, warning that a broad fair use ruling would undercut terms the unions negotiated at the bargaining table.

The underlying case is not new. The Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging that thousands of its articles were used without permission to build ChatGPT, and the paper moved for summary judgment last month, according to Variety.

What This Does and Does Not Mean

A friend of the court brief is an argument, not a ruling. Star power does not decide copyright law, and a list of celebrity supporters is not evidence in itself. What the filing does is put the entertainment industry's licensing machinery in front of the judge as a practical counterpoint to the claim that paying for training data is unworkable.

The decision rests with the court, and there is no public timeline yet for a ruling on the Times' motion. Until then, the takeaway is simple: the people whose faces and voices fill the screen want a say in how AI uses them, and they are now saying so in federal court. Hollywood Magazine will keep following the case.