CA Courts Dismiss Artists’ Case Against DeviantArt, Midjourney, and Stability.ai - AI Roundup Ep. 35

Summary

In 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.