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

AI Roundup

1 Nov 202306:15

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

00:00

🤖 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.

05:01

📚 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

AI companies refer to businesses that develop and utilize artificial intelligence technologies. In the video's context, companies like Mid Journey and Stability AI are central to the discussion of pending legal cases related to AI image generation tools and their training methods. The script mentions these companies in relation to copyright infringement claims brought by artists.

💡Copyright law

Copyright law is a legal framework that protects the rights of creators over their original works. In the video, artists claim that AI companies have violated copyright law by using their works to train AI models without permission, thus infringing on their rights.

💡Stable Diffusion

Stable Diffusion is an AI model mentioned in the script that is part of the legal dispute. It is an image generation tool that the plaintiffs claim was trained using their copyrighted works without authorization, leading to the legal action.

💡Lion Data Set

The Lion Data Set is referenced as the dataset used to train the Stable Diffusion model. The script discusses how the cases against Deviant Art and Mid Journey were dismissed because they are not directly tied to the creation of the dataset, unlike Stability AI.

💡Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. The script details a case where artists allege that their works were used in AI training without permission, constituting infringement.

💡Artistic identity

Artistic identity refers to the unique style or characteristics of an artist's work. In the video, it is mentioned as one of the aspects violated by AI companies when they allegedly used artists' works without consent in AI model training.

💡Unfair competition

Unfair competition is a legal concept where businesses engage in practices that are detrimental to fair market competition. The script mentions it as one of the claims by artists against AI companies, suggesting that the use of their works in AI training provides an unfair advantage.

💡Registered copyrights

Registered copyrights are official records of copyright ownership with a copyright office. The script explains that two of the artists' claims were dismissed because they had not registered their works with the copyright office, which is a prerequisite for launching a copyright infringement action.

💡Direct infringement

Direct infringement in the context of copyright law means the explicit and unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Sarah Anderson's claim remains in play because she has registered copyrights and has alleged direct infringement by Stability AI.

💡AI models

AI models, as discussed in the script, refer to the algorithms and systems used by AI companies to generate new images or perform tasks. The script clarifies misconceptions about how these models work, noting that they do not simply download, store, or compress images, but rather learn patterns to generate new content.

💡Legal precedent

A legal precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding or influential in a court's decision on a subsequent case with similar issues. The script suggests that the outcome of the discussed case could set a precedent for how AI companies use images in training their models.

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.