AI firms face setback in copyright battle with visual artists
A group of visual artists has scored a significant victory in their legal battle against AI image generators. A California federal judge has ruled that visual artists can continue to pursue some of their copyright claims against AI companies Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI.
The artists alleged that these companies used their copyrighted images to train their AI models without permission, violating their rights. While the judge dismissed some of the claims, he allowed others to proceed, including allegations that the companies illegally stored copyrighted works on their systems.
US District Judge William Orrick, presiding over the Northern District of California, stated that the artists have made a plausible argument that the companies’ actions could violate their rights.
“Plaintiffs rely on some of those works to plausibly demonstrate that their works were used as training images and that their works or elements of their works can be recreated through the AI products. The identification of those works may not prove liability under the Copyright Act, but they do provide support for the plausibility of plaintiffs’ Copyright Act theories,” the judge said in a 33-page ruling.
This case is part of a broader legal battle concerning the use of copyrighted material in AI training. The artists argued that AI companies have used datasets, such as those from LIAON, which include their copyrighted works without permission.
The judge admitted the artists’ submission.
“Plaintiffs have plausible allegations showing why they believe their works were included in the LAION datasets. And plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Midjourney product produces images – when their own names are used as prompts – that are similar to plaintiffs’ artistic works,” the ruling read.
The judge refused to dismiss related trademark claims but dismissed allegations of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of a separate US copyright law.
The bone of contention
The core issue in this case revolves around the AI systems’ use of copyrighted works to train their models, particularly the Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion model, which the artists claim contains “compressed copies” of their works. Judge Orrick noted in his ruling that while the full extent of copyright infringement is not yet clear, it is plausible that the Stable Diffusion model could lead to infringement through its use by end-users.
“If an AI company profits from content based on someone else’s copyrighted material, they are obligated to share those earnings, possibly in the form of royalties,” said Prashant Mali, an advocate who specializes in data protection and cyber laws. “AI technology was never intended to be used freely at the expense of creators’ rights, and this ruling underscores the need for clear guidelines in balancing innovation with copyright protection.”
This ruling follows a previous decision by Judge Orrick, who had dismissed several of the artists’ original claims in October but allowed them to refile their case. The artists, including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, refiled their complaint in November with additional plaintiffs.
Judge Orrick’s recent decision now permits them to proceed with their copyright claims.
Mali pointed out that copyright protection exists for any original work created by an artist. “If an artist has provided explicit consent, such as a No Objection Certificate (NOC), their work can be legally used to train AI algorithms.”
“However,” Mali stated, “AI-generated content must be transparent regarding copyright usage, including providing appropriate disclaimers where necessary.”
While the judge dismissed some of their claims due to procedural issues, like the lack of registered copyrights for many of the works in question, the case will continue to move forward on the remaining counts.
This ongoing legal dispute highlights the complexities surrounding copyright issues in the era of AI-generated content. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for other similar lawsuits, such as those filed by Sarah Silverman against Meta and a class action against OpenAI, which are also being heard in the Northern District of California.
For now, the artists have secured a critical victory in their fight to protect their work from what they view as unauthorized use by AI technologies. As the case progresses, it could have far-reaching implications for how copyright law is applied to AI-generated content and the responsibilities of companies that develop and deploy such technologies.
