Hollywood’s biggest names are stepping into one of the most important debates surrounding artificial intelligence: who owns creative work, and should technology companies be allowed to use it to train AI systems without permission?
A growing coalition of actors, musicians, entertainment organizations and creative professionals is supporting The New York Times in its ongoing copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. Among the high-profile names connected to the effort are Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Madonna, Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Ron Howard and Olivia Wilde. Their involvement has brought renewed attention to a legal dispute that could influence the future of journalism, film, music, publishing and the wider entertainment industry.
The issue goes beyond one newspaper or one technology company. At its center is a question that affects millions of creators: when an AI system learns from articles, photographs, books, music or other copyrighted material, should the people who made that work have a say in how it is used?
The latest developments suggest that Hollywood is increasingly determined to be part of that conversation.
Hollywood’s Creative Community Enters the AI Copyright Debate
The latest show of support came through a legal filing submitted in the Southern District of New York on October 30, 2026. The 31-page amicus brief was filed by the Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by Cate Blanchett, alongside several organizations representing creative professionals and the entertainment industry.
An amicus brief, sometimes called a “friend of the court” brief, allows individuals or organizations that are not direct parties in a lawsuit to share information and arguments they believe may help the court understand the wider implications of a case.
The filing was also supported by Creative Artists Agency, the Music Artists Coalition, the National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc., and the Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence. An appendix listed well-known entertainers supporting the effort, including Anne Hathaway, Madonna, Bette Midler, Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Dan Levy, Ron Howard and Olivia Wilde.
Their names add considerable visibility to an already significant legal dispute. However, it is important to understand that these celebrities are not necessarily plaintiffs in the lawsuit themselves. Their support is connected to the coalition’s court filing and its arguments about creative rights, licensing and consent.
The central message is that creative work has value, and the people who produce it should not be excluded from decisions about how that work is used to develop commercial AI technology.
Why Cate Blanchett Is Speaking Out About AI and Consent
Cate Blanchett has become one of the most recognizable voices in this particular debate through her involvement with the Human Consent Foundation.
The foundation focuses on protecting individuals’ control over how their work and likenesses are used by artificial intelligence systems. Its position is especially relevant to actors and performers, whose professional identities can include recognizable faces, voices, performances and creative contributions.
In the filing, Blanchett emphasized that consent should remain a basic principle when someone wants to use an individual’s image, face or voice. She explained that her experience in film and theater has taught her that creative industries rely on agreements, contracts and established processes for obtaining permission.
Her message reflects a concern shared by many performers: technological progress should not automatically remove the rights people have over their creative contributions and personal likenesses.
The debate is particularly important as AI tools become increasingly capable of generating realistic images, imitating voices and producing content that resembles the work of established artists. For actors and musicians, these developments raise questions about unauthorized digital replicas, commercial use and the possibility of audiences encountering synthetic performances that appear to come from real people.
Blanchett’s position does not necessarily suggest opposition to artificial intelligence itself. Rather, it highlights the need for clear rules about permission and the commercial use of human creativity.
Anne Hathaway, Madonna and Other Famous Names Add Their Support
The involvement of Anne Hathaway, Madonna and other recognizable entertainers has helped turn a complex legal issue into a major entertainment industry story.
Hathaway has built a long career across film, theater and popular culture, while Madonna has spent decades establishing herself as one of the most influential figures in modern music. Their inclusion in the coalition’s list of supporters reflects the broad range of creative professionals who may be affected by decisions about AI training and copyright.
Other names associated with the filing include Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, Bette Midler, Ron Howard, Dan Levy and Olivia Wilde. The list demonstrates that the discussion is not limited to one generation, profession or corner of Hollywood.
Actors, directors, musicians and writers all depend on creative work that can be protected through copyright, contracts and other legal rights. Their concerns may differ depending on their careers, but many share an interest in ensuring that new technologies do not weaken the value of original work.
The support also arrives at a time when the entertainment industry is already dealing with questions about AI-generated performances, digital likenesses, voice replication and the use of creative material in automated production.
For Hollywood, the issue is not simply whether AI can make content. It is whether the technology can be developed and commercialized in ways that recognize the people whose work helps make it possible.
What Is The New York Times’ Lawsuit Against OpenAI About?
The legal dispute began in December 2023, when The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing the companies of using its copyrighted journalism without authorization in connection with developing AI products.
The newspaper argues that its articles and other protected material were used to train AI systems without the permission or compensation it believes should have been required. It has also raised concerns about AI products producing responses that may reproduce or closely reflect its journalism, potentially affecting the value of its reporting and its relationship with readers.
OpenAI has disputed the claims and has argued that its use of publicly available material to train AI models can qualify as fair use under US copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows certain uses of copyrighted material without permission, depending on the circumstances and relevant legal factors.
Microsoft is also named in the case because of its relationship with OpenAI and its involvement in the development and distribution of AI-powered products.
The lawsuit has become part of a much wider legal debate about how existing copyright rules apply to artificial intelligence. Publishers, authors, musicians, visual artists and other rights holders have raised similar concerns about the use of their work in training datasets.
The outcome could influence how courts evaluate the relationship between copyrighted material and the development of commercial AI systems.
Why Hollywood Organizations Believe AI Training Should Involve Licensing
One of the most important arguments in the coalition’s filing concerns licensing.
The brief challenges the idea that obtaining permission to use creative works for AI training is too difficult or expensive to manage. It argues that the entertainment and creative industries already have systems for licensing large collections of copyrighted material.
Music provides a useful example. Organizations such as collective licensing bodies and rights-management groups help administer permissions for large repertoires of songs and recordings. Instead of requiring a separate negotiation for every individual use, established systems can make it possible to manage rights across extensive collections.
The coalition argues that similar approaches could help address the challenges of licensing creative works for AI training.
This is an important distinction. The debate is not only about whether AI developers should be able to access large amounts of information. It is also about whether the commercial use of protected creative material should involve agreements that recognize the rights of its owners.
For creators, a functioning licensing system could offer a way to participate in the growing AI economy while retaining control over how their work is used.
For technology companies, however, licensing large datasets may raise practical questions involving cost, ownership, scale and the identification of rights holders. Those questions are part of the broader legal and commercial debate.
SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America Also Raise Concerns
The Hollywood response is not limited to the Human Consent Foundation and the celebrities associated with its filing.
SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America and the American Federation of Musicians have also submitted a separate brief supporting the creative industry’s concerns about AI training and copyright.
These organizations represent professionals whose livelihoods depend on acting, writing, performing and making music. Their involvement highlights the potential consequences of a legal decision that could affect not only major studios and technology companies but also individual workers.
For performers, AI raises questions about digital replicas, voice cloning and the use of recorded performances. For writers, the concern includes whether books, scripts and other written works can be used to train commercial systems without appropriate permission. Musicians face related questions about recordings, compositions and the possibility of AI-generated material competing with human-created work.
The unions have warned that accepting a broad fair-use argument for AI training could undermine protections and agreements negotiated for creative professionals.
Their position reflects a wider concern that technological changes should not make existing contracts and copyright protections meaningless.
Why the AI Copyright Battle Matters Beyond Hollywood
Although celebrities and entertainment organizations have attracted much of the public attention, the legal questions extend far beyond the film and music industries.
Journalists, independent writers, photographers, illustrators, researchers and digital publishers all create material that may be valuable to AI developers. If courts establish broad rules about how copyrighted work can be used for AI training, those decisions could affect creators across many industries.
For independent creators, the issue may be especially important. Large media companies often have legal teams and established licensing departments. Smaller publishers and individual artists may have fewer resources to monitor how their work is used or negotiate agreements with major technology companies.
The development of AI has also created new business opportunities. Creators may be able to license their work for training, collaborate with technology companies or use AI tools to improve their own production processes. But those opportunities depend partly on whether creators have meaningful choices and clear information about how their work is being used.
A licensing system could potentially create new revenue streams. At the same time, questions about fair compensation, transparency and consent remain difficult to resolve.
The court’s eventual decisions may help clarify some of these issues, but the wider conversation will likely continue as AI technology evolves.
OpenAI’s Fair Use Argument and the Other Side of the Debate
While the Hollywood coalition is calling attention to creator rights and licensing, the legal dispute is not a simple conflict between artists and technology companies.
OpenAI has argued that training AI models on publicly available material can fall within fair use. Supporters of this position often emphasize that AI systems learn patterns from large collections of information and that this process can be different from simply republishing the original material.
Technology companies have also argued that access to large datasets is important for developing useful AI systems and that requiring individual permission for every item could create significant practical obstacles.
Copyright holders, meanwhile, argue that commercial AI development should not automatically excuse the use of protected work without authorization. They are concerned about the economic impact on original creators and the possibility that AI-generated products could compete with the very people whose work helped train them.
These arguments will need to be evaluated through the legal process. The fact that a coalition has submitted an amicus brief does not mean the court has accepted its position or decided the case.
The legal question is complex, and the final outcome will depend on the evidence, applicable copyright law and the court’s assessment of the arguments presented by both sides.
What Happens Next in the Hollywood AI Copyright Fight?
The latest filings add pressure and public attention to a case that has already become one of the most closely watched copyright disputes involving generative AI.
The New York Times and the technology companies have asked the court to resolve important legal questions through summary judgment. This is a process in which a judge may decide certain issues without a full trial when the relevant legal standards are met.
The court’s decisions could have consequences for other copyright cases involving AI developers, publishers and creative industries. They may also influence how companies approach future licensing agreements and how creators negotiate the use of their work.
For Hollywood, the immediate priority is making sure that performers and other creative professionals have a voice in decisions that could shape their future careers.
For AI developers, the challenge is finding ways to continue building powerful tools while addressing concerns about copyright, consent and commercial rights.
The two sides do not necessarily have to remain opponents. Licensing agreements, transparent policies and clearer consent systems could create opportunities for technology companies and creators to work together. Whether those approaches become more common may depend partly on the legal standards established in cases like this one.
The Future of AI May Depend on How It Treats Human Creativity
The involvement of Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Madonna and other Hollywood figures has brought a human dimension to a debate often dominated by technology and legal terminology.
Behind every article, song, film, photograph or performance is a person or team whose work contributes to the creative economy. As artificial intelligence becomes more capable of producing new material, questions about ownership, permission and compensation are becoming harder to ignore.
The Hollywood coalition’s position is that innovation and creative rights should be able to coexist. Technology can offer new ways to produce, distribute and experience entertainment, but creators want a meaningful role in deciding how their work contributes to that progress.
The lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft has not yet settled the wider debate. However, the growing involvement of entertainment organizations and well-known artists shows that the issue is no longer confined to news publishers and technology companies.
The next chapter of the AI copyright battle could help determine how creative work is valued in an increasingly automated world. For Hollywood and creators everywhere, the question is not simply what artificial intelligence can do. It is whether the people behind the original work will have a fair say in what happens next.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway and Madonna supporting the AI copyright debate?
They are among the prominent names listed in connection with a coalition filing supporting arguments about creator rights and licensing in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. Their support highlights concerns about permission, compensation and the use of creative work in AI training.
What is the Human Consent Foundation?
The Human Consent Foundation is a nonprofit co-founded by Cate Blanchett that focuses on protecting people’s control over how their work and likenesses are used by artificial intelligence systems.
What is The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI about?
The New York Times filed a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging that its copyrighted journalism was used without authorization in connection with AI development. OpenAI disputes the claims and has argued that its use of material for training can qualify as fair use.
What does an amicus brief mean?
An amicus brief is a legal submission from an individual or organization that is not a direct party to a case but wants to provide information or arguments that may help the court consider the issues.
Does Hollywood’s support mean OpenAI has lost the lawsuit?
No. The coalition’s filing does not decide the case. The court must consider the legal arguments and evidence from the parties before reaching a decision.
Why does AI training raise copyright concerns?
AI systems are developed using large collections of data, which may include copyrighted material. Creators and rights holders are concerned about whether their work can be used commercially without permission, licensing or compensation.
Sources
- TheWrap: Cate Blanchett-Led Coalition Challenges OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Battle
- Axios: Hollywood Backs NYT in AI Copyright Fight with OpenAI and Microsoft
- Music Business Worldwide: Music Artists Coalition Joins Cate Blanchett and CAA on AI Licensing Brief
- Page Six: Hollywood’s Biggest Players Are Backing New York Times’ Massive Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI
