Creative industry groups back New York Times in AI copyright fight with OpenAI, Microsoft

Traders Union
All News
Business & Wealth
Companies
AI copyright fight with NYT

Highlights

Creative industry groups representing over 250,000 workers, including music and film organizations, filed amicus briefs supporting the New York Times in its copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft.
WME and other talent agencies advocate for licensing creative materials to AI models instead of halting their use, emphasizing potential commercial impacts across the broader creative economy.
The Times and other publishers expanded litigation by suing web browser Brave on Monday for allegedly scraping and distributing copyrighted content to AI companies, intensifying the legal battle.

Amicus briefs widen pressure on AI training practices

As reported by Axios, a coalition representing creative talent across music, film, TV, performing arts and writing entered the legal dispute last week by filing amicus briefs in support of the Times. Briefs filed Friday back the newspaper's position that AI companies should not be allowed to train large language models on publishers' material without permission.

Hollywood figures including Anne Hathaway, Bette Midler and Madonna support the Times through a brief filed by The Human Consent Foundation, which includes talent giant CAA and several groups representing musical artists, voice actors and writers. Major music organizations, including the Recording Industry Association of America, the National Music Publishers' Association, ASCAP and BMI, also filed a separate brief defending the rights and livelihoods of more than 250,000 entertainment and media workers.

Talent agencies are also taking positions on the issue. WME argues that the use of creative materials by AI should not be halted outright, but should instead be licensed.

Licensing debate expands beyond news sector

The filings show broad alignment across parts of the creative economy that do not necessarily need to bring their own lawsuits, but still see major commercial and legal implications in the outcome. News outlets, authors and music publishers have led much of the litigation over intellectual property, while the latest briefs aim to show the court how widely the ruling could affect copyright markets.

Several journalism organizations, including the News/Media Alliance and a coalition of local journalism groups, also support the Times, arguing that the case carries implications for the financial sustainability of the news industry. A recurring theme in the filings is opposition to any broad exemption that would let AI companies avoid licensing copyrighted content.

That stance is notable because U.S. creative industries have long relied on licensing deals for music, TV and film distribution. OpenAI and other companies argue that a licensing system for digital content would be too cumbersome, while the Justice Department supports that argument for AI model training, though not necessarily for outputs generated in response to user queries.

The legal fight is also widening on another front. The Times, alongside other publishers, on Monday sued web browser Brave, alleging it scraped copyrighted works and distributed them to AI companies.

In our earlier article on Elon Musk’s pledge that SpaceX would reimburse users for Grok-related transaction mistakes, we outlined how AI agents handling payments and bookings are raising fresh liability questions. We noted that, unlike many competitors’ terms that shift responsibility to users, Musk suggested a broader guarantee even as real-world mishaps—from unintended purchases to data leaks—underscore the growing financial and legal risks of agent behavior.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.