Creators urge collective licensing for AI rights clearance

Cate Blanchett, Nick Hexum and Steven Soderbergh joined the Human Consent Foundation, CAA, Music Artists Coalition, National Association of Voice Actors, Writer, Inc. and Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence as amici.[1] The coalition’s brief is 31 pages long and was filed on October 30, 2026.[1][2] Separately, SAG-AFTRA, the American Federation of Musicians and the Writers Guild of America East and West filed a joint brief the day before.[5] WME filed a separate amicus brief on October 30, arguing that AI use of creative materials should be licensed rather than stopped.[5]

The amici say OpenAI and other defendants have characterized rights clearance for AI training as too costly, technically infeasible and unsupported by a market or valuation framework.[1] They counter that creative industries already have infrastructure and workflows to clear rights for dispersed works at scale and cost-effectively.[2] The brief says collective licensing frameworks have been used in creative industries for more than a century.[2] It describes collective licensing groups as centralized clearinghouses that administer repertoires through blanket licenses and automated, metadata-driven systems.[2] The brief names the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers and Broadcast Music, Inc. as examples.[2]

A statement quoted in the materials says every person should have a genuine say in how AI uses their identity, voice and creative work.[3] The Human Consent Registry lets people publicly declare, at no cost, how AI systems may use their name, image, likeness and other identity attributes.[3] Blanchett said people should ask her before using her face, voice or image, and said she has worked in film and theater for more than 30 years.[4] Nick Hexum said the foundation wants creators protected and to have meaningful choice as the AI data licensing market grows.[4]

The New York Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI for copyright infringement, accusing them of unlawfully using its work to create AI products.[2] The Times filed for summary judgment in the case in September 2026.[4] An OpenAI spokesperson directed Variety to a Friday blog post featuring briefs supporting the company’s position, while Microsoft did not respond to Variety’s request for comment.[4] WME’s brief said rights holders and AI companies announced more than two dozen licensing deals or partnerships between mid-2023 and mid-2024, including at least 28 involving payment for training-data access.[5] These filings present competing positions on how rights for AI training should be handled.[1][2][5]