Human Consent Foundation Joins Lawsuit Against OpenAI
The foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the New York Times in its legal battle over AI training practices.
Updated on Oct. 30, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should AI companies be legally required to pay creators to use their work for training?
The Human Consent Foundation submitted a 31-page amicus brief in the Southern District of New York supporting the New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The filing challenges the argument that licensing creative works for artificial intelligence models is cost-prohibitive.
Why it matters
The organization aims to protect individual likenesses from unauthorized scraping while asserting that existing industry infrastructure can effectively manage rights licensing at scale. This intervention bolsters the request for summary judgment brought forward by the New York Times.
The 31-page legal filing details how creative industries currently utilize established infrastructure and workflows to clear rights for works at scale. The brief specifically disputes technical claims regarding the inability to clear rights for AI training data.
The players
Human Consent Foundation
This advocacy organization works to secure the likenesses and creative works of individuals against unauthorized scraping by artificial intelligence models.
New York Times
This national media organization is currently pursuing a high-profile lawsuit against AI developers for copyright infringement.
SAG-AFTRA
This major labor union represents thousands of performers and professionals in the film, television, and recording industries.
Anne Hathaway
She is an Academy Award-winning actress who appears on the list of supporters for the new amicus brief.
Madonna
She is a global music icon and performer whose support is listed in the appendix of the recently filed legal document.
The details
Supported by groups including CAA and the Music Artists Coalition, the brief includes a wide-ranging list of creative figures such as Anne Hathaway and Madonna. This filing follows a separate submission by industry unions, including SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, aimed at protecting creative professionals.
Timeline
Thursday, October 22, 2026: SAG-AFTRA and other unions filed a separate amicus brief.
Friday, October 23, 2026: The Human Consent Foundation filed its amicus brief.
The Tech Race
This development marks a significant escalation in the industry-wide conflict over the Copyright Act's fair use doctrine as applied to generative training data. It highlights a departure from the tech industry's legacy model of unrestricted scraping toward a potential future of formal rights licensing.
This litigation could dictate whether artists and content creators receive compensation when their work is utilized by generative AI tools. Consumers may eventually see changes in how digital media platforms attribute or pay for the content that fuels next-generation software models.
The takeaway
The surge of support from Hollywood unions and public figures indicates a growing consensus that AI training must align with established copyright standards. Readers should watch for upcoming court rulings that could set a lasting precedent for the financial valuation of creative intellectual property.
Further reading
Explore the broader implications of these legal disputes in our Artificial Intelligence section.
Live Poll
Should AI companies be legally required to pay creators to use their work for training?
