# Wikimedia urges separate fair-use analysis in OpenAI case

> Wikimedia distinguishes training from retrieval; publisher groups challenge unlicensed training.

By BIGCHANGE.AI Editorial

Published: 2026-10-30T11:37:38.697Z
Updated: 2026-10-30T11:37:38.697Z
Canonical: https://bigchange.ai/blog/wikimedia-openai-copyright-amicus-training-retrieval

![Conceptual charcoal illustration of unmarked books beside two separate stacks of blank legal briefs on a wooden table.](https://bigchange.ai/api/media/file/authors-guild-books-filings-hero-v2.png)
AI-generated conceptual illustration by BIG CHANGE.

On October 29, Wikimedia asked to submit a brief supporting neither side in the consolidated OpenAI copyright litigation.

## The big change

- Wikimedia argues general-purpose pre-training is likely fair use, unlike certain substitutive retrieval uses.
- Publisher organizations contest fair use for unlicensed training itself, arguing that it harms markets for works and licenses.
- These competing arguments ask the court to assess different claimed effects on creators and AI developers.

## Two stages, two arguments

In its [proposed brief](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/26.10.29_WMF_motion_and_amicus_In_re_OAI.pdf?utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original&utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org), Wikimedia argues general-purpose pre-training is likely fair use because it builds a model with a different purpose from the original. It argues that certain retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG, uses likely are not fair when copied material answers the same informational demand and substitutes for the source.

Wikimedia recognizes uses complying with Wikipedia’s CC BY-SA license and notes some services cite and link to sources. Its argument does not establish that all retrieval is unlawful.

The [publisher groups’ proposed brief](https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026.10.29-Amicus-Brief_AAP-CCC-IBPA-STM.pdf) supports class and news plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions. It argues training uses works for their expressive content and that substitutes and unlicensed training harm existing and developing licensing markets.

## Procedural status

The current disposition of Wikimedia’s leave request was not independently verified. BIG CHANGE read both proposed briefs; neither is a judgment.

This is a further development in the same consolidated litigation covered in [BIG CHANGE’s earlier report](https://bigchange.ai/blog/authors-guild-openai-unsealed-book-training-filings) on Authors Guild book-training filings.

## Sources

- [Wikimedia proposed brief and motion](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/26.10.29_WMF_motion_and_amicus_In_re_OAI.pdf?utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original&utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org) — Requested leave and position supporting neither party.
- [Wikimedia Foundation statement](https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/10/30/wikimedia-foundation-amicus-brief-new-york-times-v-open-ai-case/) — Foundation explanation of its open-knowledge concerns.
- [Publisher organizations proposed brief](https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026.10.29-Amicus-Brief_AAP-CCC-IBPA-STM.pdf) — Advocates for class and news plaintiffs.