Unions, talent agencies and stars including Madonna and Anne Hathaway filed amicus briefs opposing the AI firms' fair use defense
The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft just picked up a supporting cast. A coalition representing creative talent across music, film, TV, performing arts and creative writing has filed amicus briefs siding with the Times.
Who showed up, and what they said
Several of these briefs landed on or around October 29 and 30, 2026. One was a 31-page brief from the Human Consent Foundation. Talent agency WME submitted a separate filing of its own.
The names attached carry real wattage. The coalition includes Madonna, Anne Hathaway and Emma Thompson, along with the Stan Lee Foundation.
The labor side came in force too. SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) filed a joint brief on October 29, 2026.
Their argument is pointed. The unions contend that a broad fair use ruling would effectively wipe out the AI-related labor agreements they recently negotiated.
The fair use fight at the center
The Times filed suit in December 2023. It alleges OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of its articles without authorization to train their large language models.
OpenAI and Microsoft have leaned on fair use as their defense. Fair use is the legal doctrine that allows certain uses of copyrighted material without permission, depending on factors like purpose and market impact.
The Hollywood briefs take direct aim at that defense. They argue that licensing markets for copyrighted material already exist and function.
The defendants have suggested that paying for training data would be prohibitively expensive and that there is no workable way to value it. The briefs counter that the entertainment industry licenses content all the time, so the “we couldn’t possibly price this” argument does not hold up.
The signatories also warn about broader consequences. They argue that a sweeping pro-fair use decision would threaten creator compensation, devalue artistic labor and destabilize existing deals across the entertainment sector.
Not a one-sided crowd
The case is being heard in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Department of Justice has filed a brief supporting OpenAI. So the federal government and a large slice of Hollywood are now on opposite sides of the same courtroom.
Why a newspaper case became Hollywood’s case
On paper, this is about journalism. The Times is the plaintiff, and its articles are the material at issue.
Scripts, song lyrics, novels and performances are all copyrighted works too. That is why writers, actors, musicians and their agents see this case as a proxy for their own future.
What this means
For creative workers, the most important piece may be the union argument. SAG-AFTRA, the WGA and the AFM have spent recent years negotiating AI protections into their contracts. Their brief signals they believe those hard-won terms could be hollowed out if courts treat training as fair use by default.
