Introduction
The case of Sarah Andersen v. Stability AI marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence, as artists challenge AI companies over the alleged misuse of their creative works. This lawsuit [3] [4], initiated in January 2023, is among the first collective legal actions addressing the implications of AI-generated content on artists’ rights.
Description
The parties in Sarah Andersen v [4]. Stability AI are proceeding to discovery [4], having filed their Joint Case Management Statement [4]. The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros for this phase [4]. Initiated in January 2023, this lawsuit represents one of the first collective legal actions by artists against AI companies for the alleged misappropriation of their works, particularly following the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT [4]. The plaintiffs [1] [2] [3] [4], including Andersen, contend that their art was misused by AI tools like Stability AI’s image generator, “Stable Diffusion,” which produced images in their distinctive styles using their names as prompts.
Notably, the court has permitted the plaintiffs to pursue a “compressed copies” theory of infringement [4], as well as claims of active inducement [4]. A significant ruling on August 12 allowed the copyright infringement claims to proceed [3], with US District Judge William Orrick finding both direct and induced copyright infringement claims plausible [3]. The judge emphasized that Stability AI’s distribution of its model facilitated the copying of copyrighted material [3], referencing statements from Stability’s CEO regarding image compression and academic papers suggesting that training images could be reproduced by AI outputs [3].
While some claims, such as unjust enrichment and breach of contract [3], were dismissed by the Northern District of California Court [3], the determination of whether the plaintiffs’ protected works are present within the AI systems will be revisited at the summary judgment stage [3]. This case could set a significant precedent in the legal landscape concerning the rights of artists in relation to AI training datasets, particularly the LAION dataset, which contains 5 billion images scraped from the internet [3].
In a related context, DMCA claims have been prevalent in AI training data litigation [1] [2], often accompanying copyright infringement claims [1] [2]. However, a recent California district court dismissed DMCA allegations against Stability AI [1], determining that claims involving the removal of copyright management information (CMI) necessitate identicality between the original work and the copy [1] [2], which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate [1] [2]. This issue of identicality is currently under interlocutory appeal [1] [2], with potential implications for the Andersen case [1] [2]. If courts adopt a stance that there is no injury or standing to support DMCA claims [1] [2], Section 1202(b)(1) claims may become less frequent unless there is clear evidence of infringing outputs generated without the CMI [1] [2]. Even if standing is established [1], the requirement for identicality may pose challenges for plaintiffs [1], as AI models generally do not produce identical works [1] [2].
Conclusion
The outcome of the Sarah Andersen v. Stability AI case and related legal interpretations could significantly influence the landscape of copyright law as it pertains to AI training and the rights of artists. The case may set important precedents regarding the protection of artists’ works in the context of AI-generated content, potentially reshaping how copyright law is applied to emerging technologies.
References
[1] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cd34af38-1094-411c-9347-577004330a6e
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-decisions-on-whether-ai-training-1219677/
[3] https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/andersen-v-stability-ai-the-landmark-case-unpacking-the-copyright-risks-of-ai-image-generators/
[4] https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/12/11/sarah-andersen-v-stability-ai-parties-file-joint-case-management-statement-as-case-assigned-to-magistrate-judge-lisa-cisneros-for-discovery/
