THE WORLD IS NOT STANDING STILL.RSS
BIG CHANGE.
BIG CHANGE, one tap away
BIG CHANGE, one tap away

Make room for the big picture.

Add BIG CHANGE to your home screen or desktop. It opens in its own window, with the latest stories when you’re online.

iPhone & iPad
Open bigchange.ai in Safari. Tap Share, then Add to Home Screen. Turn on Open as Web App if shown, then tap Add.
Android
Open bigchange.ai in Chrome. In the browser menu, choose Install app or Add to Home screen.
Desktop
In Chrome or Edge, use the install icon in the address bar or the browser’s app menu. In Safari on Mac, choose File → Add to Dock.

Markdown edition

# 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.