Center for AI and Digital Policy files amicus brief on training-data provenance in OpenAI case

What happened

On 30 October 2026, the Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) moved for leave to file an amicus brief in *In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation*, No. 1:25-md-03143 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Sidney H. Stein), docket entry 2408-1. The motion was filed by Marc Rotenberg for CAIDP. CAIDP announced on 4 November 2026 that the brief, prepared with more than 20 AI experts and legal scholars including Gabriela Ramos, Stuart Russell and Helen Nissenbaum, had been filed in the case.

What the brief argues

The brief takes a position described as neutral between the parties. Its central propositions, as set out by CAIDP, are that training-data provenance is essential to AI accountability; that copyright law should not reward opacity - in the brief's words, "The Court should not interpret copyright law in a way that gives developers an advantage from failing to know, preserve, or disclose facts about training-data provenance"; and that "AI training" is not a single legal act. According to a summary of the brief's arguments, it also notes that the Copyright Office found voluntary licensing is developing, that recordkeeping lowers licensing transaction costs, that it seeks no general licensing requirement, and that knowing use of pirated data weighs against a fair-use defence.

Status

The brief was filed as a proposed amicus brief with a motion for leave; the court had not ruled on the motion at the time of filing.