Creative groups back New York Times in AI copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft

Highlights

A coalition of music, film, TV, performing arts, and creative writing organizations filed amicus briefs last week supporting The New York Times in its AI copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft.
Major industry bodies and labor groups representing over 250,000 entertainment and media workers argue that AI training on copyrighted content should require licensing, not broad exemptions for technology companies.
The case's outcome could impact licensing models across media sectors as support from journalism and creative industry groups signals high-stakes implications for traditional revenue structures and copyright enforcement.

Amicus briefs widen the copyright dispute

As reported by Axios, a coalition of organizations representing music, film, TV, performing arts and creative writing filed amicus briefs last week supporting the New York Times in its case against OpenAI and Microsoft.

Briefs filed Friday back the Times' argument that AI companies should not be allowed to use publishers' material to train large language models 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 CAA and coalitions representing musical artists, voice actors and writers.

Major industry bodies including the Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers' Association, ASCAP and BMI filed a separate brief. Labor groups including SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians and the Writers Guild of America East and West also filed a brief, saying they are defending the rights and livelihoods of more than 250,000 entertainment and media workers.

Talent agency WME also weighed in, taking the position that AI use of creative materials should not be stopped outright, but should be licensed. The repeated emphasis across the filings is that AI companies should not receive a broad exemption from paying for copyrighted content used in training.

Licensing debate expands beyond news media

The breadth of support from groups with different commercial interests suggests the case is becoming a broader test for the U.S. creative economy. While news outlets, authors and music publishers have led recent copyright litigation over AI, the latest filings underscore that the court's eventual approach could affect licensing models across multiple content industries.

Several journalism organizations, including the News/Media Alliance and a coalition of local journalism groups, also filed briefs backing the Times and stressing the financial sustainability of the news business. That argument aligns with a wider concern from rights holders that unlicensed AI training could weaken revenue structures long used in music, television and film distribution.

OpenAI and other companies have argued that creating a licensing system for digital content would be too cumbersome. The Justice Department has supported that view for training AI models, though not necessarily for the outputs of AI queries.

The legal pressure on the AI sector is also widening. The Times, alongside other publishers, on Monday sued web browser Brave, alleging it scraped copyrighted works and distributed them to AI firms.

Our earlier article on the KPMG U.S. CEO survey examined how large companies are seeing mostly incremental benefits from AI agents so far, with only a small share calling them transformational. It also highlighted that leaders expect AI to drive hiring, retraining, and sustained investment in infrastructure as organizations redesign workflows around human‑AI collaboration.

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.