CA Courts Dismiss Artists’ Case Against DeviantArt, Midjourney, and Stability.ai - AI Roundup Ep. 35
Summary
TLDRIn the latest AI Roundup, host Phil Buck discusses a significant copyright case filed in California against AI companies, including Stability AI, Mid Journey, and Deviant Art. The case, involving artists Sarah Anderson, Kelly McCan, and Carla Ortiz, claims infringement of copyrights and artistic identities. The court dismissed most claims due to lack of registered copyrights and unclear evidence, leaving only Anderson's claim against Stability AI. This case could set a precedent for AI model training with public images, highlighting the need for artists to clarify their copyright claims.
Takeaways
- 📜 The video discusses a significant court case in California involving AI companies like Stability AI, Deviant Art, and Mid Journey, which were accused of copyright infringement by artists.
- 🤖 The case is notable as it could potentially set a precedent for how AI image generation tools are trained and the legal implications of using artists' works without permission.
- 📚 The lawsuit was filed in January and involves three plaintiffs: Sarah Anderson, Kelly McCan, and Carla Ortiz, who claim their copyrights were violated by the AI companies.
- 🚫 The court dismissed the cases against Deviant Art and Mid Journey, as Deviant Art merely offers a version of Stability AI's product, and there's no evidence Mid Journey's models were trained on the disputed data set.
- 🔍 The claim against Mid Journey was dismissed due to a lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' assertion that its models were trained using Stable Diffusion.
- 📝 The court found that two of the three artists, Kelly McCan and Carla Ortiz, could not proceed with their claims because they had not registered their works with the copyright office, a prerequisite for a copyright infringement action.
- 📌 Sarah Anderson's claim remains, as she has registered copyrights, and the court found she adequately alleged direct infringement based on Stability AI's alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted images to create Stable Diffusion.
- 🤝 The video suggests that the plaintiffs' assertions about AI models downloading, storing, or compressing images are inaccurate, as this is not how AI models like Stable Diffusion operate.
- 🔄 The case might influence future legal interpretations of how AI companies can use publicly available images for training their models, but the plaintiffs have not yet established a strong case.
- 👀 The video host, Phil Buck, expresses anticipation for future rulings on fair use and the interpretation of derivative works in the context of AI training, which could significantly impact the AI industry.
- 📢 The host encourages viewers to engage with the content by liking, commenting, and subscribing, and to follow the channel on social media for updates on similar cases.
Q & A
What is the main topic of the AI Roundup episode discussed in the script?
-The main topic is the case in California courts brought against AI companies like Mid Journey and Stability AI by artists who claimed their works were used to train AI models in violation of copyright law.
What is the significance of the case mentioned in the script for AI image generation tools?
-The case is significant as it could potentially change the landscape of how AI image generation tools are allowed to be trained, by setting precedents for the use of artists' works in AI model training.
What is the Stable Diffusion and why is it central to the case?
-Stable Diffusion is an AI model that is central to the case because it is the technology that the plaintiffs claim was used to infringe on their copyrights by using their works without permission.
Why were the cases against Deviant Art and Mid Journey dismissed?
-The cases were dismissed because Deviant Art only offers a version of Stability AI's products and is not liable for copyright infringement, while the plaintiffs could not provide facts to support their claim that Mid Journey models were trained using Stable Diffusion.
What is the status of the claim against Stability AI in the script?
-The claim against Stability AI is still in play, but the plaintiffs need to prove they have registered copyrights of the works they allege were used by Stability AI without permission.
What is the prerequisite for launching a copyright infringement action according to the court's decision in the script?
-The prerequisite for launching a copyright infringement action is that the works must be registered with the copyright office.
Why were the claims from two of the three artists dismissed?
-The claims from two artists, Kelly McKerrin and Carla Ortiz, were dismissed because they had not registered their works with the copyright office, which is a prerequisite for launching a copyright infringement action.
What is the remaining claim in the case, and who is the plaintiff?
-The remaining claim is from Sarah Anderson, who has registered copyrights and has adequately alleged direct infringement based on the allegations against Stability AI.
What misconceptions about AI models do the plaintiffs seem to have according to the script?
-The plaintiffs seem to have misconceptions about AI models working by downloading, storing, or compressing images, which is not how AI models like Stable Diffusion operate.
What are the potential legal repercussions for AI companies based on this case?
-The case might set a precedent for how AI companies can or cannot use publicly available images to train their models, affecting the way they handle copyright issues.
What other cases are the host of the AI Roundup looking forward to see resolved?
-The host is looking forward to cases involving Getty Images and Sarah Silverman, particularly interested in how judges will rule on the fair use clause and the interpretation of derivative works for AI training.
Outlines
🤖 AI Copyright Cases: A Step Forward for Artists?
The first paragraph discusses the anticipation of rulings in copyright cases against AI companies such as Mid Journey and Stability AI. The focus is on a case in California where artists claimed their works were used to train AI models without permission, potentially violating copyright law. The case, Sarah Anderson et al. v. Stability AI Limited et al., is complex, involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants, and centers around the use of the 'lion dataset' for training AI models. The dismissal of claims against Deviant Art and Mid Journey highlights the lack of evidence linking them to the alleged copyright infringement. The paragraph also touches on the technical misunderstandings in the plaintiffs' assertions about AI model training and the remaining claim by Sarah Anderson, who has registered copyrights, against Stability AI for unauthorized use of copyrighted images.
📚 Ongoing AI Copyright Litigation and Its Implications
The second paragraph continues the discussion on AI copyright litigation, emphasizing the need for clarity in artists' claims and the potential impact of these cases on the use of publicly available images for AI model training. It mentions other significant cases involving Getty Images and Sarah Silverman, which are expected to shed light on the interpretation of fair use and derivative works in the context of AI. The paragraph concludes with the presenter's anticipation for these cases to be settled and their implications for the future of AI image generation tools, as well as an invitation for audience engagement through likes, comments, and subscriptions, along with contact information for the show.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡AI companies
💡Copyright law
💡Stable Diffusion
💡Lion Data Set
💡Copyright infringement
💡Artistic identity
💡Unfair competition
💡Registered copyrights
💡Direct infringement
💡AI models
💡Legal precedent
Highlights
The time has come for actual rulings in pending cases against AI companies like Mid Journey and Stability AI.
A case in California courts was brought against Mid Journey, Stability AI, and Deviant Art by artists claiming their works were used to train models in violation of copyright law.
The case is significant as it may change the landscape of how AI image generation tools are allowed to be trained.
The case involves three different plaintiffs: Sarah Anderson, Kelly McCan, and Carla Ortiz, alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition.
Most claims in the case tie back to Stable Diffusion and the LAION dataset, leading to dismissals against Deviant Art and Mid Journey.
Deviant Art is not liable for copyright infringement as it only offers a version of Stability's products.
The claim against Mid Journey is dismissed due to lack of evidence that its models were trained using Stable Diffusion.
The court dismissed claims from two artists, Kelly McCan and Carla Ortiz, for not registering their works with the copyright office.
Sarah Anderson's claim remains due to having registered copyrights and alleging direct infringement by Stability AI.
The plaintiffs' assertions about how AI models work, such as downloading and storing images, are inaccurate.
The case might set a precedent for AI companies' use of publicly available images to train their models.
The plaintiffs have been given the opportunity to amend their case against Stability AI.
The case highlights the importance of artists being able to hold AI companies accountable for copyright claims.
The outcome of this case is eagerly anticipated as it could have a major impact on the AI industry.
Other cases, such as those with Getty Images and Sarah Silverman, are expected to provide further clarity on fair use and derivative works in AI training.
The episode of AI Roundup discusses the implications of the legal document and the potential fallout in the AI industry.
The host, Phil Buck, invites viewers to engage with the show through likes, comments, subscriptions, and social media.
Transcripts
on today's show the time has finally
come and no I'm not talking about the
singularity or a robot Uprising the time
has finally come for us to get some
actual rulings for the numerous pending
cases against AI companies like mid
journey and stability
[Music]
AI
[Music]
what's up everyone welcome back to AI
Roundup I'm your host Phil buck and for
today's episode I'm excited to discuss
some reporting I saw last night about a
case in California courts that was
brought against mid Journey stability Ai
and deviant art by artists who claimed
their Works were used to train models in
violation of copyright law now this is a
big deal because we've been waiting for
months to see some Fallout from the
these pending cases that will inevitably
change the landscape of how AI image
generation tools are allowed to be
trained for reference this case was
filed in January today though we've
actually got some real news and it's not
looking great for artists I don't think
this particular case is going to be a
major Trends Setter for what's to come
with future litigation the case Sarah
Anderson at all plaintiff's V stability
AI Limited at all is a real can of worms
it's involving three different PL Sarah
Anderson Kelly mccan and Carla Ortiz
artists who claimed three different
companies stability AI Deviant Art and
mid Journey have infringed on their
copyrights violated their artistic
identities and engaged in unfair
competition and more there's like six
different complaints in this lawsuit U
so for the most part everything in this
case it ties back to stable diffusion
and the lion data set which is why the
cases have been dismissed against
Deviant Art and mid Journey the plists
do have the opportunity to amend their
case against stable diffusion basically
deviant art only offers a version of
stability products so deviantART isn't
liable for any perceived copyright
infringement here uh also one of the
most interesting things about the mid
Journey claim here is that as we've seen
in previous discussions here on the show
it's it's really unclear how or what the
mid Journey models were trained on the
claim against mid journey is dismissed
here because the plaintiffs claim it was
trained using stable diffusion but there
are no facts to back this up
um I think for a while now we've been
stating that mid journey is something of
its own Beast which you can see in the
quality of the images comparing it to
stable diffusion there's there's really
not a ton of public information about
the creation of MJ's models uh but this
case does shed a little light on the
idea of our suspicions that it's simply
not a stable diffusion clone where
things get a little bit messy is the
claim against stability the case does
leave the opportunity for the plaintiffs
to lay a copyright claim against
stability but the plaintiffs haven't
been able to prove they actually have
registered copyrights of The Works they
alleg have been scraped and trained by
stable diffusion models it appears that
the court dismissed claims from two of
the three artists Kelly mckernin and
Carla Ortiz because they had not
registered their works with the
copyright office which is a prerequisite
for launching a copyright infringement
action the only claim that remains in
play is from Sarah Anderson who does
have registered copyrights according to
the court Anderson has adequately
alleged direct infringement based on the
allegations that stability downloaded or
otherwise acquire copies of billions of
copyrighted images without permission to
create stable diffusion okay so that's
the thing much of what these plists are
asserting is not fully accurate about
how AI models work the assertion that
the images are downloaded stored or
compressed is simply that's just not how
llms work for generating new imagery I
mean just think about how large five
billion images would be I don't have a
model on my hard drive for stable
diffusion that is larger than 6 gbt and
that's a big one the lion data sets
range from 2 to 10 terabytes so I'll
leave it to you to do the math on this
compression uh in terms of legal
repercussions for AI this case might set
a precedent for how AI companies can or
cannot use publicly available images to
train their models but so far it seems
like these plaintiffs have mostly just
thrown anything they think would stick
at the wall to see what comes out in the
wash and that's mostly where we're at
with this one many if not most aspects
of the case have been thrown out leaving
the one remaining plaintiff to amend her
case against stability I mean in
conclusion unfortunately it simply seems
like these plaintiff didn't do a good
job forming their case there's a lot of
initial assertions in the complaint that
weren't founded and they changed their
stories on several aspects during the
first hearing so they kind of they kind
of biffed it but I think I think it's
good that the door is still open for
artists to hold stability accountable
for copyright claims if they can clarify
them I'm not sure if they can do that
you know I'm still really looking
forward to several of these cases like
with Getty Images and Sarah Silverman
you know I I want to see how the judges
will rule on the fair use clause and
more about how derivative Works will be
interpreted for the use of training AI
so I think once we get some rulings on
those particular aspects of the law when
applied to AI we're really going to see
a major
Fallout wo okay wow uh waiting through a
28 page legal document was not how I had
envisioned this episode but I got to say
it's uh it's pretty exciting stuff and
I'm looking forward to more of these
cases getting settled soon and so that's
our AI Roundup for today if you enjoy
what we're doing here on the show please
help me out by liking this video drop me
a comment and sub to the channel also be
sure to follow us on social media at MSP
mediatv you can email us at news MSP
media.tv or call call 833 MSP Network to
leave me a voicemail all right everybody
I'm Phil buck and this has been your
November 1 episode of AI Roundup and
I'll see you next
[Music]
time this has been a broadcast of the
MSP media
Network
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
SE ESTREMECE EL REAGGEATTÓN POR DECISIÓN FEDERAL DEL GRAN COMBO - Usaron a los Beatles para decidir
Why Artists are Fed Up with AI Art.
AI vs Artists - The Biggest Art Heist in History
10 DISTURBING AI Breakthroughs Coming In 2024
Creativity in the Age of AI: Generative AI Issues in Art Copyright & Open Source
These artists will DESTROY AI
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)