Note: We first reported on this case last November. This post covers a recent ruling in the case.
In a pivotal court ruling, visual artists have scored a significant victory in their ongoing battle against AI companies like Stability AI, Midjourney, and others. This victory is a testament to the artists' unwavering commitment and determination to protect their rights. The heart of the lawsuit revolves around whether these companies unlawfully used copyrighted images to train their AI models, which can generate new art in the style of, and without, the artists' consent.
Initially filed by a group of artists, including illustrators and photographers, the lawsuit argues that AI companies scraped billions of images from the web—including copyrighted artworks—to develop their tools. These images were allegedly used to train AI systems like Stable Diffusion, which is widely used for generating images. For many photographers (and other artists), this feels like an exploitation of their work, which is being fed into AI systems without any form of compensation or credit.
The ruling was made by U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California on August 15. It allowed the artists' core copyright infringement claims to proceed. This means the court recognizes that the AI companies' actions—using these images without permission—may have violated copyright law. Importantly, as I understand it, this ruling opens the door for the artists to dig deeper into the practices of these companies, particularly during the discovery phase, where they will gain access to information about how the companies gathered and used the copyrighted images.
Though some claims were dismissed, including allegations related to unjust enrichment and breach of contract, the remaining claims are critical. The court’s decision allows the artists to challenge the fairness of using copyrighted material to train AI models. This case could set a legal precedent for how copyrighted works are treated in the age of AI and may ultimately result in greater protections for photographers and other artists of all types.
For fine art photographers, this ruling is a reminder of how crucial it is to safeguard your work in the digital age. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, the lines between original art and machine-generated imitations are becoming increasingly blurred.
If the artists succeed in their lawsuit, it may lead to stricter regulations on using copyrighted material in AI training, potentially ensuring that photographers maintain control over how their images are used. It could reshape copyright law in the digital realm, ensuring that creators are appropriately credited and compensated when their work is used to fuel the latest technological innovations. This potential shift in copyright law offers hope for a future where creators' rights are more robustly protected.
By paying close attention to this case, photographers can better understand the evolving landscape of copyright protection and how it might impact their work in the future. This case is not just a legal battle, but a crucial moment that could significantly shape the future of photography and copyright law.
Subscribe to our blog and newsletter to stay updated.