Artists against image generators: lawsuit in the USA takes next hurdle

Artists in the USA are pleased about a partial victory in their lawsuit against image generation providers. Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California wrote that the "allegations of induced infringement are sufficient." The allegation of copyright infringement is therefore still pending. Some of the allegations were only recently dismissed by Orrick.

The decision marks the start of the so-called disclosure phase. This means that the artists' lawyers can request documents and information on the structure of the image generators from the providers. They can gain insight into the training data and processes. The plaintiff artist Kelly McKernan writes on X: "... now we can find out all the things the providers don't want us to find out." She describes the progress as a great victory.

Image generators are based on protected works

McKernan, Sarah Anderson, Karla Ortiz and other artists accuse Midjourney, Runway, Stability.ai and DeviantArt of unlawfully using their works. The judge, who has jurisdiction over the Bay Area in California, where numerous AI companies are based, wrote in his decision: "In this case, plaintiffs allege that Stable Diffusion relies heavily on copyrighted works and that the product's functionality necessarily relies on copies or copyrighted elements of those works." It must now be clarified whether this is the intention of the provider - as the plaintiffs claim - or whether it is a coincidence or even a mishap, as the defendants say.

The original lawsuit is based on the fact that the artists' works were used for training purposes and that Stable Diffusion's output was "in the style of the artists". The providers of other image and video generators were only included in the process. Initially, the lawsuit focused on the Laion association, which provides the training data sets that are then used by the AI providers. However, Laion only provides a list of URLs from which the training images must first be made usable with the help of other tools.

Karla Ortiz writes on X that the plaintiffs are not merely asserting their copyright claims, but that the judge's decision also means that all companies that use Stable Diffusion models or the Laion datasets could be held liable for copyright infringement. The artists filed the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all similarly affected rights holders.

The judge had previously dismissed some of the claims, such as unfair competition, advertising using the artists and more. However, the judge also allowed an improved statement of claim to be submitted in each case. The judge has now issued a new interim decision.

Interim decision of the judge: Sarah Andersen et al. v. Stability AI LTD et al.

(emw)