By Sophia Williams
“We’ve filed a lawsuit challenging AI image generators for using artists’ work without consent, credit, or compensation. Because AI needs to be fair & ethical for everyone.”[1] – ‘Stable Diffusion Litigation’ (website created by attorneys on behalf of the artists)
“If a work is transformative…then it's not a violation of copyright and the plaintiff simply has no ground on which to stand to file a copyright infringement case…[T]hose who refuse to acknowledge advancements in technology and instead fight against them are like whittlers mad at power tools.”[2] – ‘Stable Diffusion Frivolous’ (website created by tech enthusiasts defending AI image generators)
On January 13, 2023, three visual artists filed a putative class action suit against three AI companies in the Northern District of California, on behalf of themselves and other artists. Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz challenge the defendants’ use of images of their artwork, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, in the development of AI image generators.
The companies, Midjourney est. 2021, Stability AI est. 2019, and DeviantArt est. 2000, create platforms that produce AI-generated art in a matter of seconds in response to users’ custom text prompts and directives. Alleging several issues with the initial complaint, these companies each filed separate motions to dismiss, and on October 30, 2023, a U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick issued an order that found that the complaint was “defective in many respects” and largely granted the defendants’ motions.[3] However, as is usual, the judge gave the artists and their legal teams “leave to amend to provide clarity regarding their theories of how each defendant separately violated their copyrights, removed or altered their copyright management information, or violated their rights of publicity and plausible facts in support.”[4] Matthew Butterick, an attorney for the artists alongside Joseph Saveri noted that the judge “sustained the plaintiffs’ core claim pertaining to direct copyright infringement” and expressed optimism in the claim’s path to trial and the ability to address the court’s concerns.[5]
Dear Visitor,
We share your curiosity for art law. Thank you for reading our complimentary articles for the month. To read more free articles, please register for a free account. For even more access and perks, consider becoming a premium member!Already a premium member? Sign in
Or, become a premium member for unlimited access