Electronic Frontier Foundation Files Amicus Brief in In re OpenAI: Narrowing Fair Use Would Harm Public Interest
US digital rights group EFF filed an amicus brief in the In re OpenAI copyright case, arguing that limiting fair use for AI training would negatively impact researchers, journalists, and accessibility tools.
On October 30, 2026, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a US-based nonprofit defending digital rights, filed an amicus brief in the consolidated copyright lawsuit In re OpenAI. The brief argues that if courts narrow the doctrine of fair use to favor publishers suing AI companies, the ruling will have severe consequences for billions of internet users worldwide, including researchers, journalists, and people with disabilities.
Currently, publishers and creators are suing large AI companies across US courts, alleging unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs argue that even transformative uses are unfair if the resulting models might produce competing content or if data was scraped without permission. The EFF counters that this logic threatens transformative uses that benefit the public. For instance, investigative journalists and nonprofit researchers often use web scraping techniques identical to those used by AI companies to uncover anticompetitive practices or misinformation. If copying without permission rules out fair use, these watchdog activities could face legal risk.
Furthermore, the brief warns that requiring proof that all copyrighted material was lawfully obtained would cast doubt on routine online activities. Everyday actions like opening emails, clicking links, or streaming music involve intermediate copies. Fair use currently allows these activities to proceed without tracking the source and clearing rights for every piece of content encountered.
The EFF also highlights the positive applications of general-purpose AI models, such as Be My AI, which uses OpenAI's GPT models to provide visual descriptions for blind and low-vision users. Generative tools have also accelerated scientific research and helped develop new medical treatments. The organization argues that mandatory licensing schemes would entrench Big Tech advantages, as only large companies could afford the costs, while small competitors and academic researchers would be priced out.