AI platforms score early win in copyright class action

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

AI platforms score early win in copyright class action

Stability AI.jpeg

A California court dismissed most of the claims filed by a group of artists in a copyright case against Midjourney, Stability AI and DeviantArt

The US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed most of the claims filed by a group of artists against three generative artificial intelligence platforms in a copyright case yesterday, October 30.

Artists Sarah Anderson, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz accused Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Stability AI of infringing their artwork.

In a class-action complaint filed in January this year, the artists alleged that the platforms had taken billions of training images that had been scraped from public websites, including their own. The platforms subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the claims.

Judge William Orrick dismissed the complaint against DeviantArt and Midjourney ruling that it “was defective in numerous aspects”.

Orrick allowed Anderson to pursue a claim that Stability AI had used her works for training.

However, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz’s claims against Stability AI because they had not registered their work with the US Copyright Office – a prerequisite for bringing an infringement action in the US.

The judge also dismissed right of publicity and unfair competition claims brought against the three platforms.

Advantage AI

Earlier this year, when various copyright infringement lawsuits were filed against generative AI platforms, counsel predicted that the biggest challenge for copyright owners would be fending off the platforms’ motions to dismiss.

In his reasoning for siding with the AI platforms, Orrick noted that the plaintiffs admitted it was likely that the platforms' images would be unlikely to match with any specific image they had created.

The artists were, however, granted leave to amend their claims, which means they can rethink their arguments.

However, Orrick said he wasn’t convinced that allegations could survive if the artists failed to prove that the generated images were substantially similar to their works.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms explain how they question jurors and account for potential bias in trade secrets cases
A meeting between the EPO and Ericsson, Paul McCartney weighing in on AI and copyright, and a law firm’s STEM pledge were among the top talking points
National courts could combat inconsistencies over the speed of judgments – and provide parties with much-needed certainty – by looking to the UPC
Sources in four jurisdictions discuss the downsides of delayed judgments and why they prefer a well-reasoned, late finding, over a quick ruling that lacks substance
Counsel discuss how likely SCOTUS is to remand closely watched trademark case, which centres on the principle of corporate separateness
Partners at Baker Botts explain why oral arguments were a crucial factor in convincing the Federal Circuit to affirm a lower court ruling
The operator hopes to capitalise on significant market opportunities presented by evolving voice technologies
Stelling is a co-founder of Brand Action
Dixon is president of CIPA, Saliger is president of CITMA, and Tunney is president of APTMA
Gift this article