Music Artists Coalition Joins Copyright Brief in New York Times AI Case

Irving Azoff's Music Artists Coalition (MAC) has joined a court filing in the New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The group signed on alongside the Human Consent Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by actor Cate Blanchett, and the talent agency CAA, according to Music Business Worldwide.

The document is an amicus brief, which is Latin for "friend of the court." It is a submission from groups that are not parties to the case, meant to give the judge an outside view on the legal questions. On October 30, the Human Consent Foundation-led group asked the court for permission to file it. The brief is 31 pages long and was filed in the Southern District of New York.

The brief takes up a practical question: whether the rights to creative works can be cleared and licensed for AI use at scale. Clearing rights means getting permission from the people who own them. At scale means doing it across very large numbers of works, not one book, song or script at a time. The brief states that it takes no position on how the judge should rule on the motions before the court.

The New York Times filed its lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023. The case now combines that lawsuit with other suits against the two companies, including one brought by book authors. Variety notes that Microsoft is one of OpenAI's chief backers.

Both sides have asked Judge Sidney Stein to decide the central issue without a trial. That issue is whether training AI models on copyrighted works without a licence is fair use, a US legal doctrine that allows certain uses of copyrighted material without the owner's permission.

The music sector has its own filing in the same case. On the same day, October 30, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), ASCAP and BMI, along with five other music organisations, filed a proposed brief backing the plaintiffs. ASCAP and BMI are performing rights organisations, which collect royalties for songwriters and publishers when their songs are played in public.

For musicians, the question is a working one. A licence system that works at scale would mean AI developers paying for the songs, recordings and lyrics they use, and the people who write and perform that material receiving a share. The case will decide whether training on copyrighted work without a licence is fair use, and the filings from both camps show how much the music business has at stake in that answer.

The judge has not yet ruled on the motions.