Hollywood Stars and Human Consent Foundation File Amicus Brief in NYT vs OpenAI Lawsuit

According to Variety, a powerful coalition consisting of the Human Consent Foundation, acclaimed actress Cate Blanchett, and various other Hollywood companies has formally entered the legal fray surrounding artificial intelligence and intellectual property. In 2026, this group filed an amicus brief in New York in connection to the ongoing lawsuit involving the New York Times, OpenAI, and Microsoft. The legal maneuver is designed to directly contest assertions made by major tech firms that clearing rights for artificial intelligence content scraping is an unreasonable burden. By stepping into the courtroom drama, these prominent figures and organizations are raising the stakes for how digital training data is acquired and utilized across the technology sector. The core of the dispute centers on the argument put forward by artificial intelligence developers who claim that obtaining proper authorization and clearing rights for massive datasets is practically impossible or economically unfeasible. Technology corporations have routinely maintained that scraping publicly available text, images, and video is a necessary component of training advanced large language models and generative systems. However, the newly filed amicus brief fiercely rejects this premise. The Human Consent Foundation and its high-profile allies, including Academy Award-winning actress Cate Blanchett alongside numerous entertainment entities, argue that dismissing content rights clearance sets a dangerous precedent. They emphasize that dismissing these fundamental protections strips creators and performers of control over their own life's work, voice, and likeness. The implications of this legal battle extend far beyond the publishing industry represented by the New York Times. Hollywood and the broader entertainment community have grown increasingly alarmed by the rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence technologies capable of cloning voices, replicating facial expressions, and generating unauthorized performances. For actors, writers, and production companies, the unrestricted harvesting of copyrighted material and personal likeness poses an existential threat to traditional labor models and creative compensation. By supporting the New York Times in this litigation, the Human Consent Foundation seeks to dismantle the tech industry's defense that convenience and technological progress justify sweeping aside established intellectual property frameworks. Legal experts note that amicus briefs play a crucial role in appellate and trial-level proceedings by providing courts with broader perspectives from affected industries and public interest groups. This particular filing highlights the converging interests of journalism and the entertainment arts in the digital age. Both sectors rely heavily on exclusive content creation and fear that unbridled artificial intelligence scraping will dilute the economic value of human labor. As the litigation in New York proceeds, the arguments brought forth by Blanchett and her fellow signatories will undoubtedly pressure the judiciary to scrutinize whether tech conglomerates can bypass copyright law simply because adherence is deemed difficult. Ultimately, this 2026 legal intervention marks a pivotal milestone in the ongoing struggle to establish ethical boundaries for artificial intelligence development. It underscores a united front from prominent cultural icons and institutional publishers demanding accountability and respect for human copyright and personal likeness rights in an increasingly automated world.