Original Plaintiffs Reassert Claims, Joined by Seven New Artists
A group of visual artists has filed an amended copyright lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI, alleging that the companies’ generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems infringe their copyrights. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks damages and an injunction barring the companies from using the artists’ copyrighted works to train their AI systems.
The original plaintiffs, illustrators Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, initially sued the companies in January 2023. In October, U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed some of the artists’ claims, but allowed them to refile their lawsuit with more specific allegations.
The amended lawsuit adds seven new artists to the proposed class action: H. Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye, and Adam Ellis. The plaintiffs allege that the companies’ AI systems create art in their styles when their names are used as prompts, and that users have been creating works that are “indistinguishable” from theirs.
In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs argue that the companies’ AI image products are “primarily valued as copyright-laundering devices, promising customers the benefits of art without the costs of artists.” They allege that the companies are profiting from the use of artists’ copyrighted works without their permission or compensation.
AI Image Products as Copyright-Laundering Devices
The plaintiffs’ argument hinges on the notion that AI image generators, by their very nature, rely on the unauthorized and uncompensated use of copyrighted material to produce derivative works. The training process, they contend, involves ingesting vast amounts of copyrighted images, effectively replicating and encoding these works within the AI system. The resulting output, while not identical to the source material, bears a striking resemblance, often mirroring the styles and techniques of the original artists.
The plaintiffs further argue that the companies’ use of prompts, particularly those that incorporate the names of specific artists, exacerbates the infringement issue. By suggesting or instructing the AI to generate images in the style of a particular artist, users effectively commission the AI to create derivative works based on that artist’s copyrighted creations.
The Grim Future of Many Artists
The plaintiffs paint a bleak picture of the future for artists in a world increasingly dominated by AI-generated imagery. They fear that AI will eventually become capable of producing art that is indistinguishable from human-created art, rendering artists obsolete and depriving them of their livelihoods.
The potential for AI to disrupt the art world is indeed significant. With AI systems rapidly evolving and becoming more sophisticated, the ability to generate realistic and aesthetically pleasing images is becoming increasingly accessible. This could lead to a decline in the demand for human-created art, as AI-generated art becomes more cost-effective and readily available.
Next Steps
The amended lawsuit is now pending before Judge Orrick. The companies have not yet filed their responses to the lawsuit. It is unclear how the court will rule on the plaintiffs’ claims. However, the case is likely to have significant implications for the future of art, copyright law, and the role of artists in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Conclusion
The lawsuit between artists and AI image generator companies raises critical questions about the boundaries of copyright protection in the digital age. As AI technology continues to advance, it is essential to establish clear guidelines for the use of copyrighted material in AI training and the downstream application of AI-generated works. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future copyright disputes involving AI and pave the way for a more equitable and balanced approach to AI development and its impact on creative industries.
FAQ
The artists argue that the companies’ AI image products are “primarily valued as copyright-laundering devices, promising customers the benefits of art without the costs of artists.”
The artists allege that the companies’ AI systems create art in their styles when their names are used as prompts, and that users have been creating works that are “indistinguishable” from theirs.
The plaintiffs paint a bleak picture of the future for artists in a world increasingly dominated by AI-generated imagery. They fear that AI will eventually become capable of producing art that is indistinguishable from human-created art, rendering artists obsolete and depriving them of their livelihoods.
The lawsuit raises critical questions about the boundaries of copyright protection in the digital age. As AI technology continues to advance, it is essential to establish clear guidelines for the use of copyrighted material in AI training and the downstream application of AI-generated works.
AI has the potential to democratize the art world by making it easier for people to create and share their work. AI can also be used to create new forms of art that were not possible before.
AI could potentially lead to a decline in the demand for human-created art, as AI-generated art becomes more cost-effective and readily available. AI could also lead to the homogenization of art, as AI systems become more adept at replicating existing styles and techniques.
Artists will need to adapt to the changing landscape of the art world by finding new ways to use technology to their advantage. Artists can also play a role in educating the public about the value of human-created art.
