AI art generators targeted in lawsuit for intellectual property theft
A class action lawsuit alleges that the AI art generation engine Stable Diffusion was trained on billions of copyrighted materials without credit, compensation, or consent of content owners.

Stable Diffusion Tim Cook
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP is seeking a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for DMCA violations, right of publicity violations, unlawful competition, and a breach of terms of service. The companies allegedly built "artificially intelligent" art generators using millions of users' intellectual property without permission.
Stability AI, Midjourney, and Deviant Art all offer AI art generators built with a product called Stable Diffusion. It is essentially an algorithm that scans large databases of images in order to create new images based on a text prompt.
The image databases used for the tools offered by the offending companies allegedly belonged to customers of the platforms, or other public websites where artwork is shared. The companies allegedly scraped all of this data to create their models, which then create artwork based on the copyrighted material.
"AI needs to be fair and ethical for everyone," said lawyer/programmer Matthew Butterick. "But Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt are appropriating the work of thousands of artists with no consent, no credit, and no compensation. As a lawyer who is also a longtime member of the visual-arts community, it's a pleasure to stand up on behalf of fellow artists and continue this essential conversation about how we the people want AI to coexist with human culture and creativity."
The term "artificial intelligence" has become a catch-all for any program that generates information or responses using increasingly large datasets. In the case of Stable Diffusion and other programs like it, they are advanced machine learning algorithms capable of processing large amounts of data to create a single image.
According to the lawsuit, if the input to the algorithm is copyrighted images and information, then the output would be an infringement of the copyright if used without permission. This would allegedly eliminate the need for artists and replace them with the AI art tool.
The class action lawsuit aims to seek redress for wrongful conduct and prevent taking over artists' jobs by protecting them using the same laws that enable streaming music services to exist.
The filing was made by the Joseph Saver Law Firm LLP along with Matthew Butterick, and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. It is filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages caused by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney.
Read on AppleInsider

Stable Diffusion Tim Cook
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP is seeking a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for DMCA violations, right of publicity violations, unlawful competition, and a breach of terms of service. The companies allegedly built "artificially intelligent" art generators using millions of users' intellectual property without permission.
Stability AI, Midjourney, and Deviant Art all offer AI art generators built with a product called Stable Diffusion. It is essentially an algorithm that scans large databases of images in order to create new images based on a text prompt.
The image databases used for the tools offered by the offending companies allegedly belonged to customers of the platforms, or other public websites where artwork is shared. The companies allegedly scraped all of this data to create their models, which then create artwork based on the copyrighted material.
"AI needs to be fair and ethical for everyone," said lawyer/programmer Matthew Butterick. "But Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt are appropriating the work of thousands of artists with no consent, no credit, and no compensation. As a lawyer who is also a longtime member of the visual-arts community, it's a pleasure to stand up on behalf of fellow artists and continue this essential conversation about how we the people want AI to coexist with human culture and creativity."
The term "artificial intelligence" has become a catch-all for any program that generates information or responses using increasingly large datasets. In the case of Stable Diffusion and other programs like it, they are advanced machine learning algorithms capable of processing large amounts of data to create a single image.
According to the lawsuit, if the input to the algorithm is copyrighted images and information, then the output would be an infringement of the copyright if used without permission. This would allegedly eliminate the need for artists and replace them with the AI art tool.
The class action lawsuit aims to seek redress for wrongful conduct and prevent taking over artists' jobs by protecting them using the same laws that enable streaming music services to exist.
The filing was made by the Joseph Saver Law Firm LLP along with Matthew Butterick, and Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. It is filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages caused by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Then when AI art is using AI derived images as it’s source, the entropy, the noise will increase until there is nothing of value.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/?amp=1
IMO, every art generating program should either be limited to public domain images or images that are either owned/licensed by the company that created the program.
I don't see a valid argument here. There are countless industries where automation is having a severe impact on existing business models and commercial viability; like everyone else visual artists will need to spend time discovering where the value is generated in their work and sell that instead. I empathise because that's a hard path to traverse, but that's the way the world is going.
And right now, I don't think any AI imaging program can extract as much detail out of any artwork, as the human eyes and brain. What makes the Mona Lisa so pleasing for humans to look at, is much more than what can be put into 1's and 0's.
If a human produces art that too obviously shows his influences, it's discounted as derivative. If he too closely mimics his influences, he can be sued for copyright infringement. Copyright infringement cases against humans generally have to show first that the infringer was actually exposed to the plaintiff's work. If that can't be established, the plaintiff will likely lose the case. If the exposure to the plaintiff's work can be established, then the case moves to whether or not the defendant too closely copied the work, or if he carried out an independently creative process that only superficially reflects the plaintiff's work. A good artist develops his own style and is more than the sum of his influences.
The question here then becomes whether AI can actually be creative, or if it's simply producing remixed versions of its influences according to a set of instructions in the programmer's algorithm, along with instructions ordering production of a given piece. The AI's database establishes exposure to the copyrighted works. If the AI algorithm simply remixes and distorts its influences, there's no creativity. It's simply following instructions telling it how much of which influences to use in the remixed end-product. It's nothing more than the sum of its influences. To avoid the infringement case, it must be demonstrated that the AI introduces something independently creative.
Uploading any file that you care about to any online service is done at your own risk I don’t (never have ) understood with the humongous storage capacity’s available these days on your computer or in an external box sitting next to your computer, why anyone would upload files/data they care about onto someone’s server that they don’t own/control, ultimately, these people obviously aren’t your friends (never were) if you have the capacity never back up and send files/data online that you care about why?
These data/file services obviously have nice flowery agreements that you agree to before you upload anything to their site. Good luck with that in court. Facebook, Google, Dropbox or any other nameless service aren’t your friends, and it’s almost a guarantee that they share pictures, manuscripts, voices, audio and any other file among each other with the purpose of making money.