The class-action copyright lawsuit initiated by artists against AI image and video generator companies has taken an intriguing turn, revealing strong defenses from the AI firms. These companies argue that the artists' claims lack merit and that the case should be dismissed (with caveats noted below).
Recently, the defendants—Stability AI, Midjourney, Runway, and DeviantArt—filed several motions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, aiming to have the case outright dismissed. This court is central to the generative AI landscape, despite Runway's headquarters being in New York City.
Background: The Evolution of the Case
Originally filed over a year ago by visual artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, the lawsuit faced a major setback in October 2023 when Judge William H. Orrick dismissed many of the artists' claims. A key reason was that most artists did not obtain copyright from the U.S. Copyright Office for their works.
The artists were invited to submit an amended complaint, which they did in late November 2023, now including additional plaintiffs like Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, and Gregory Manchess.
The crux of the artists' argument is that AI companies scrape their publicly shared artwork without permission, using these images to train AI models that generate works resembling the original pieces without providing attribution or compensation.
AI Companies’ Counterarguments
The AI companies contend that their models do more than merely replicate existing artworks. They assert that the code comprises a new product—image-generating software that does not create exact replicas unless explicitly instructed to do so. Additionally, the companies claim that the artists have not demonstrated instances of third parties reproducing their work using these AI models.
Despite lacking legal expertise, I find the AI companies' arguments compelling.
DeviantArt: The Outlier's Position
DeviantArt, a long-established platform for artists, emphasizes its role as a facilitator rather than a creator of AI-generated art. In its filing, DeviantArt argues that its offerings, specifically a version of the Stable Diffusion model branded as “DreamUp,” should not implicate it in the lawsuit.
DeviantArt states, “The claims against us raise novel questions in generative AI, yet none relate to direct infringement by our platform.” It emphasizes that merely implementing existing AI models does not equate to liability, suggesting that such a precedent could lead to absurd implications across the programming and media landscapes.
Runway: Addressing Storage and Copy Allegations
Runway, which collaborated with Stability AI on training the Stable Diffusion model, counters accusations that it stores original work. It asserts the artists fail to provide direct evidence of their works being copied by the model, relying instead on third-party research to support their claims. Runway argues that this reliance undermines their position.
Furthermore, Runway cites a precedent in the Authors Guild vs. Google Books case, contending that the minimal access granted to copyrighted content does not constitute infringement.
Stability AI: Defending Against Claims of Derivative Works
Stability AI faces significant scrutiny, primarily due to its role in making the Stable Diffusion model widely available. Its recent filing indicates that the AI models are fundamentally software, not artwork, and outlines that neither Stability AI nor its models promote copying artists’ work. The company highlights a lack of evidence demonstrating intent to infringe.
Stability lawyers also reference a landmark Supreme Court decision on the Betamax case, arguing that devices (or models) with legitimate uses cannot be deemed infringing solely based on the potential for misuse.
Midjourney: Rebutting Claims of Misuse and Copyright Violations
Midjourney, a leading AI image generator, has faced its own set of controversies, particularly regarding its potential imitation of artists' unique styles. Concerns arose over Discord messages from its founder, David Holz, discussing style references utilized by users generating images.
Midjourney's legal team contends these references do not imply that the artists endorsed their work, as insights were drawn from public sources like Wikipedia.
In its defense, Midjourney argues that, similar to other reproduction technologies, merely enabling the creation of copies does not equate to copyright infringement. The central question lies in how users utilize the technology, not the technology itself.
As this case unfolds, the judges' decisions remain to be seen, with no trial date set yet. The AI companies involved are keen to see the case dismissed to avoid further litigation.
Ranking
