Hollywood Stars Back NYT Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Likeness Use

Background of the New York Times lawsuit

The New York Times recently filed a lawsuit against two major technology firms, alleging that the companies used the newspaper's articles and the likenesses of public figures without obtaining proper permission. The complaint claims that the defendants relied on large data sets that contain copyrighted text, photographs, and recordings, and that they failed to secure licenses before training their language models.

While the case centers on the newspaper's own content, it also raises broader questions about the use of celebrity images and voices. The legal battle has attracted attention from a wide range of stakeholders, including publishers, tech firms, and the entertainment industry.

The Human Consent Foundation’s mission

Founded by actress Cate Blanchett, the Human Consent Foundation is a nonprofit organization that seeks to protect individuals from having their likenesses harvested without consent. The group argues that the current practice of scraping publicly available material for training purposes undermines personal privacy and the economic value of creative work.

According to the foundation’s website, its goal is to establish clear standards for consent, to promote transparency, and to ensure that any commercial use of a person’s image or voice is accompanied by a fair agreement.

Hollywood’s amicus brief

In early May, a coalition of Hollywood studios, talent agencies, and individual artists submitted an amicus brief in support of the New York Times. The brief was filed on behalf of the newspaper and highlights the industry’s existing mechanisms for licensing content.

Key signatories include major studios such as Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, and streaming platforms like Netflix. The brief also lists dozens of individual actors, directors, and musicians who have joined the effort.

Key points of the brief

• Studios have long maintained databases of cleared footage, photographs, and audio recordings.
• Licensing agreements are negotiated on a case‑by‑case basis, ensuring that creators receive compensation.
• The industry’s infrastructure can be adapted to handle new forms of digital content without compromising rights.
• Allowing unrestricted data scraping would erode the value of existing licensing models.

Why the brief emphasizes “proven infrastructure”

The argument rests on the fact that Hollywood has spent decades building robust systems to manage rights. From the early days of film reels to today’s digital asset management platforms, the industry has developed contracts, clearance departments, and royalty tracking mechanisms.

These systems, the brief asserts, are capable of handling the volume and complexity of modern digital media. By leveraging existing processes, studios can provide the necessary permissions for any new technology that wishes to use their assets.

Examples of existing infrastructure

1. Rights clearance teams that review each clip or recording before it is released.
2. Standardized licensing contracts used by agencies such as the Screen Actors Guild‑American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.
3. Royalty collection societies that distribute payments to creators worldwide.

Potential impact on the entertainment industry

If the court rules in favor of the New York Times, the decision could set a precedent that requires all technology firms to obtain licenses before using any copyrighted material. This would reinforce the importance of the existing licensing ecosystem.

On the other hand, a ruling against the newspaper could weaken the bargaining power of studios and talent agencies, potentially leading to new revenue streams for technology companies at the expense of traditional rights holders.

Reactions from key figures

Cate Blanchett, speaking on behalf of the Human Consent Foundation, said that the lawsuit highlights a “fundamental mismatch between the speed of technological development and the protections that individuals deserve.”

Warner Bros. spokesperson Lisa Martinez noted that “the industry has always respected the creative contributions of its talent, and we are prepared to defend that legacy in court.”

Microsoft issued a brief statement emphasizing its commitment to “responsible innovation” and indicating that it is reviewing the claims in detail.

Legal precedents and future outlook

Previous cases such as Authors Guild v. Google have addressed the balance between public access and copyright protection. Those rulings generally favored the transformative use defense, but the current lawsuit focuses on the lack of explicit permission for likenesses.

Legal scholars from Stanford Law School suggest that the case could become a landmark decision for digital media, shaping how future technologies negotiate rights.

Industry observers will be watching the proceedings closely, as the outcome may influence not only how movies and music are licensed, but also how news organizations protect their reporting.

For now, the coalition of Hollywood talent remains united in its belief that the existing rights‑clearance framework is sufficient to handle emerging challenges, and that any deviation would undermine the value of creative work.