Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt are fighting back against a lawsuit filed by a group of artists who accused the AI companies of committing mass copyright infringement. The artists claimed their works were used without authorization in generative AI systems, resulting in AI-generated images in their styles that violated their rights.
In a filing submitted to the San Francisco federal court on Tuesday, the companies asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed. They argued that the AI-generated images were not similar to the artists’ work and that the lawsuit failed to identify specific images that were allegedly misused.
Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz were the artists who filed the lawsuit. They sued the companies in January, alleging that the unauthorized copying of their works to train the systems and create AI-generated images in their styles violated their rights.
In their filing, Stability argued that the artists “fail to identify a single allegedly infringing output image, let alone one that is substantially similar to any of their copyrighted works.” Meanwhile, Midjourney’s motion said that the lawsuit did not “identify a single work by any plaintiff” that it “supposedly used as training data.”
DeviantArt, an online artist community with a service allowing users to create images through Stability’s Stable Diffusion system, echoed those arguments and said it was not liable for the AI companies’ alleged misconduct. “Even taking Plaintiffs’ claims at face value, DeviantArt did none of the things that supposedly give rise to the liability asserted,” it said.
However, the artists’ lawyer argues that the AI companies rely on a narrow interpretation of copyright law. According to the artists’ complaint, the AI-generated images are derivative works. As such, the companies needed to obtain the artists’ permission to use their works as a basis for creating new ones.
The lawsuit is part of a larger debate around the use of AI in creative works. While AI can potentially revolutionize the art world, it raises questions about copyright, ownership, and attribution. Some artists and critics worry that AI-generated works could devalue the human element in art and make it harder for artists to protect their intellectual property.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for using AI in creative works. If the court rules in favor of the artists, it could set a precedent for future cases and make it harder for AI companies to use existing works as training data without obtaining permission.
On the other hand, if the court dismisses the case, it could provide some clarity for AI companies and allow them to continue developing new tools and technologies without fear of legal action. However, it is worth noting that even if the case is dismissed, it is unlikely to be the end of the debate around AI and copyright in the art world. As AI continues to evolve, so will the legal and ethical questions it raises.