Hollywood's Biggest Stars Are Taking on OpenAI. The Fight Is About Who Owns Creativity.

Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Madonna and other entertainment figures have joined a growing legal debate over how artificial intelligence companies use copyrighted work. At the centre is a question that could reshape the economics of AI: should technology companies be required to pay for the creative material used to train their systems?

Published: October 31, 2026

On October 30, 2026, Cate Blanchett's Human Consent Foundation and a coalition of entertainment groups including Creative Artists Agency (CAA) filed a 31-page friend-of-the-court brief in The New York Times' copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The brief disputes the defendants' claim that licensing creative work for AI training is "impossible," arguing that the entertainment industry already licenses rights at scale.

According to TheWrap, Anne Hathaway, Bette Midler, Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Madonna, Ron Howard, Dan Levy and Olivia Wilde are listed in an appendix supporting the filing.

The intervention adds Hollywood's influence to a legal dispute that began in 2023 and now raises questions far beyond newspaper publishing.

For technology companies, it concerns the legal foundations of developing powerful AI models. For artists, publishers and other creators, it concerns who gets to profit when their work becomes part of the infrastructure powering those systems.

1. What Hollywood Filed Against OpenAI and Microsoft

The brief was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday, October 30.

An amicus curiae brief, commonly called a friend-of-the-court brief, allows organisations or individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit to present arguments relevant to the court's decision.

This means Blanchett and the other celebrities have not become plaintiffs. Instead, the coalition is supporting arguments about the legal treatment of copyrighted creative work.

Alongside the Human Consent Foundation, the brief was co-signed by CAA, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors and the Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence.

Its central challenge concerns the claim that licensing the enormous quantities of material used for AI training would be impossible, and that there is no settled way to value training data.

The filing asks the court to recognise that the difficulty of obtaining licences does not make licensing impossible.

2. The New York Times Lawsuit Behind the Battle

The underlying lawsuit began on December 27, 2023, when The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court.

The newspaper alleged that the companies used millions of its copyrighted articles without permission to develop AI products, including systems associated with ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. According to Reuters' original reporting, it accused them of profiting from its investment in journalism without compensation.

The Times also argued that AI responses could reproduce its reporting or substitute for visiting its website.

That distinction matters commercially. If an AI service can deliver similar information without sending readers to the original publisher, it threatens the subscriptions, advertising and licensing that fund journalism.

OpenAI and Microsoft dispute that their training practices constitute unlawful copying. OpenAI maintains that training AI models qualifies as fair use under US copyright law.

The case is now part of consolidated proceedings, In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, which bundle 12 lawsuits from publishers, authors and other rights holders, according to the Wikimedia Foundation.

On September 4, 2026, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, asking US District Judge Sidney H. Stein to decide key questions, including fair use, without a full trial. Days earlier, the US Justice Department filed a statement of interest backing OpenAI and calling AI training "extraordinarily" transformative, Reuters reported.

The Hollywood coalition's October filing arrives during this stage of the case.

3. Hollywood Says Licensing AI Training Data Is Already Possible

The coalition's most important argument is not simply that artists deserve payment.

It is that the commercial and technical systems needed to negotiate and administer creative licences already exist.

The brief points to collective licensing organisations such as Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC). According to TheWrap, it says these bodies use blanket licences and metadata-driven systems to manage rights at scale.

Rather than negotiating separately with every individual creator, businesses can obtain permissions through these collective structures. The coalition argues comparable approaches could work for AI training.

That matters because AI companies need extraordinarily large and varied datasets. Identifying millions of rights holders, negotiating terms, determining valuations and keeping records would involve substantial costs.

The coalition's point is that logistical complexity should not be confused with the absence of workable commercial systems.

There is an important limitation. Existing music and entertainment licensing systems are not automatically universal solutions for every form of training data. Different works involve different rights, owners, territories and permitted uses, and applying those systems to AI would still require significant development.

The brief is therefore an argument that licensing is feasible, not proof that a comprehensive AI licensing market already exists.

4. What Is the Human Consent Foundation? Cate Blanchett's Case for Consent

Blanchett's involvement highlights another issue surrounding generative AI: control over personal identity.

The Human Consent Foundation, formerly known as RSL Media, is a public benefit nonprofit co-founded by Blanchett, CEO Nikki Hexum and Eckart Walther. On its official website, it says it is not a licensing organisation. Its aim is to make consent "clear, visible, free to all and readable by AI systems," including through a Human Consent Registry where people can set permissions.

In the filing, Blanchett draws on more than three decades in film and theatre. "If someone wants to use my face, my voice or my image, they ask me first," she says, according to TheWrap. "Consent isn't a barrier to creativity, it is the foundation of it."

The argument has become more urgent as AI tools improve at producing realistic voices, images, video and synthetic performances. A business can now create a convincing digital spokesperson without organising a production shoot.

A synthetic voice resembling a recognisable performer raises different legal considerations from an AI-generated image of a fictional person. Likewise, permission to publish an actor's photograph in one campaign does not authorise every future use of that image.

The New York dispute principally concerns copyrighted works and AI training. Rights involving a person's likeness may fall under separate legal doctrines. But the foundation connects these issues through a common principle: people should have meaningful choices about the commercial use of their contributions.

5. Entertainment Unions Are Joining the Pressure

Blanchett's coalition is not the only entertainment group seeking to influence the court.

On October 29, 2026, SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians and the Writers Guilds of America East and West filed a separate amicus brief. According to SAG-AFTRA, the unions represent more than 250,000 entertainment and media workers.

They urge the court to reject a categorical fair use exemption for AI training, contending that using human-created works without permission or compensation could undermine both the value of creative labour and emerging licensing markets.

They are particularly concerned about collectively negotiated agreements. Entertainment workers and production companies have spent years establishing contractual protections governing how creative work is used and paid for. An overly broad reading of fair use, the unions argue, could weaken those protections.

Their participation also changes the scale of the debate. It is no longer only a newspaper against major technology companies. It increasingly involves performers, musicians, writers, publishers and the institutions that represent them.

6. OpenAI Argues That Fair Use Is Essential for Innovation

OpenAI presents a substantially different interpretation of the law.

On October 30, 2026, it published Fair Use Benefits Everyone, a roundup of excerpts from amicus briefs supporting its position, filed by academics, creators, library and accessibility groups, technology organisations and the US government. The post reportedly accuses the Times of pursuing an "undeserved payday."

Under US copyright law, fair use can permit certain uses of copyrighted material without permission, depending on purpose, the nature of the work, the amount used and the effect on the market.

OpenAI argues that training a general-purpose AI system serves a fundamentally different purpose from the original works. A newspaper article is written to inform readers about an event. A model trained partly on articles, OpenAI argues, learns statistical patterns and capabilities rather than functioning as a collection of those articles.

The Justice Department's filing made a similar case. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said that "AI dominance is critical to promote national security, prosperity, and economic mobility for all Americans," according to Reuters.

Supporters also warn that restrictive licensing requirements may favour large technology businesses that can afford expensive agreements, leaving smaller developers, independent researchers and open-source projects at a disadvantage.

OpenAI's position does not mean every reproduction of protected material is lawful. The question before the court is whether the specific practices challenged in this litigation fall within existing copyright law.

7. Wikipedia Offers a Middle Ground on AI Training and RAG

The debate is not divided neatly between Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

On October 30, the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, filed its own brief distinguishing between training AI models and using systems that retrieve content to answer users' questions.

For training, Wikimedia argues fair use should apply when the model produces something "new and different from the original sources."

For retrieval-augmented generation, commonly called RAG, it argues the opposite. RAG systems find and copy content from the web and deliver it back to users through a chatbot. Wikimedia says that use should not be considered fair, and that companies should respect each publisher's licensing terms.

A model learning general language patterns is not equivalent to a chatbot retrieving a specific article and presenting its contents. That is why the court's decision may require more nuance than a simple rule declaring all AI training lawful or unlawful.

The Authors Alliance filed in support of OpenAI and Microsoft on one narrow issue: "market dilution," the theory that AI-generated works harm originals simply by competing with them. It warns that copyright law should not treat ordinary competition from new, non-infringing works as a legal injury.

These competing submissions show that even groups representing creators and public-interest causes disagree about where copyright restrictions should begin and end.

8. What This Means for Brands, Agencies and Businesses Using AI

The legal dispute is taking place in the United States, but the commercial questions extend well beyond American technology companies.

Businesses throughout the UAE and wider Gulf are adopting generative AI in advertising, customer service, website development, photography, video production and content creation. The outcome could influence how AI vendors structure their products, licensing agreements and commercial guarantees.

For brands and creative agencies, there are several practical considerations.

First, the source of creative assets matters. Businesses should know whether the images, music, video, fonts and other materials in their campaigns are properly licensed for their intended use.

Second, permission to use an AI tool is not the same as ownership of every underlying asset. A subscription may grant contractual rights to use generated outputs, but those rights depend on the provider's terms and applicable law.

Third, human identity requires particular care. AI-generated voices, lookalikes and synthetic performances may raise consent, contractual or publicity concerns, depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.

Fourth, documentation becomes more important as AI production grows. Keep records of original assets, permissions, production methods and the third-party tools used to create commercial work.

Finally, AI policy should be part of creative governance. Rather than letting every department or supplier adopt AI independently, set clear standards for how generated material is commissioned, reviewed and approved.

For digital agencies, this also presents an opportunity. Clients increasingly need help deciding not only what AI can produce, but how it fits a reliable and responsible brand production process. That includes evaluating rights, ensuring visual consistency and protecting client data.

None of these practices guarantees legal immunity. However, they can reduce avoidable commercial and reputational risks while letting businesses take advantage of new technology.

9. What Happens Next in the OpenAI Copyright Lawsuit?

Judge Stein must now decide the summary judgment motions. Reply briefs are due in November, and no date has been set for a ruling.

The amicus briefs are intended to help the court assess the broader implications. They do not determine the outcome. As of October 31, 2026, the coalition's filing is a legal argument, not a ruling that OpenAI or Microsoft violated copyright law.

The judge could resolve some questions through summary judgment, leave others for trial, or issue decisions that are later challenged on appeal.

The wider law remains unsettled. Reuters notes that the first two judges to consider fair use in AI training, in 2025 cases involving Anthropic and Meta, issued diverging rulings. A judgment here could become influential in other generative AI disputes, depending on the facts.

The outcome could also shape commercial negotiations. If courts interpret fair use narrowly, technology companies will face stronger incentives to negotiate licences. If courts adopt broader protections, AI developers gain legal certainty, while copyright holders may need to rely more heavily on contracts and other protections.

10. Who Captures the Value of Creativity?

The Hollywood coalition's filing exposes an underlying economic tension in generative AI.

Creative work has traditionally been produced through a combination of human talent, financial investment, intellectual property protection and distribution. AI introduces another layer: technologies that learn from vast collections of existing material and generate new content at unprecedented speed.

That creates potential benefits for businesses, researchers, consumers and creators themselves. It also raises questions about how the value of the original material should be recognised.

Hollywood argues that existing licensing practices offer a foundation for that relationship. OpenAI and its supporters argue that fair use protects transformative technologies and the innovation they enable. Neither position has been vindicated in this litigation yet.

For businesses watching the dispute, the lesson is not to abandon AI. It is to recognise that creative ownership, licensing and consent are becoming important considerations in deploying it.

The next phase of AI may be shaped as much by the legal frameworks governing creative work as by the capabilities of the models themselves.

The question is no longer only what AI can create. It is also what rights and responsibilities should accompany the material that makes its creation possible.

---

Reporting and Sources

• TheWrap: Cate Blanchett-Led Coalition Challenges OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Battle, October 30, 2026.
• SAG-AFTRA: Entertainment Unions File Amicus Brief, October 29, 2026.
• OpenAI: Fair Use Benefits Everyone, October 30, 2026.
• Reuters via The Star: US Government Backs OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Case, September 2, 2026.
• Wikimedia Foundation: Brief in New York Times v. OpenAI, October 30, 2026.
• Authors Alliance: Amicus Brief in OpenAI Copyright Litigation, October 30, 2026.
• Human Consent Foundation: About the Organisation.