Creative Groups Challenge AI Licensing Cost Claims
An amicus brief in the New York Times lawsuit argues that existing industry infrastructure makes licensing for AI training feasible.
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 filed an amicus brief in the New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft to challenge claims that licensing creative content for AI training is impractical. This legal action, submitted in the Southern District of New York, supports a motion for summary judgment by asserting that existing industry infrastructure can manage rights at scale.
Why it matters
The filing directly contests the argument from AI developers that clearing rights for training data is technically or economically unfeasible. By detailing how creative sectors handle mass licensing, the coalition aims to establish a legal precedent for individual likeness and content protection against unauthorized scraping.
The 31-page filing argues that creative industries have the operational capacity for large-scale rights management, contradicting claims that model training requires broad, unlicensed access to data.
The players
Human Consent Foundation
An advocacy group focused on protecting individual likenesses and creative output from unauthorized AI model scraping.
SAG-AFTRA
A major labor union representing performers and broadcast journalists that recently filed a separate amicus brief.
OpenAI
A developer of large language models and generative AI systems that is currently a defendant in the copyright lawsuit.
New York Times
A national news publisher currently engaged in litigation against tech companies over intellectual property rights.
The details
The amicus brief outlines how established creative workflows can facilitate the legal acquisition of content. It positions these existing systems as sufficient for AI developers to secure rights for training data without relying on unauthorized scraping. This filing supports the New York Times' bid for summary judgment, emphasizing that licensing creative works is not cost-prohibitive given the current infrastructure in Hollywood and the music industry.
Timeline
Thursday, October 22, 2026: Unions including SAG-AFTRA filed a separate amicus brief.
Friday, October 23, 2026: The Human Consent Foundation submitted its 31-page brief in the Southern District of New York.
The Tech Race
The filing serves as a pivotal entry in the ongoing New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. It forces a legal showdown over whether AI development can continue to rely on the current scraping-based infrastructure or must transition to a licensed model.
Future AI models may face stricter operational constraints or mandatory licensing fees if courts adopt the arguments presented by these coalitions. This change could ultimately alter the availability of AI-generated content produced by tools that currently rely on broad, unlicensed datasets.
The takeaway
The court's response to the motion for summary judgment will determine if AI companies can continue their current data ingestion methods or must overhaul their licensing strategies. Readers should watch for future filings in the Southern District of New York that address these rights-management claims.
Further reading
For broader trends in intellectual property litigation, visit our Artificial Intelligence section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Variety.
Live Poll
Should AI companies be legally required to pay creators to use their work for training?
