Introduction
The case of Andersen v. Stability AI [1] [3] highlights a significant legal dispute over the number of depositions permitted in a lawsuit concerning alleged copyright infringement by AI companies. This case underscores the broader implications of AI technology on copyright law and the creative industry.
Description
In the ongoing case of Andersen v. Stability AI, the parties are embroiled in a dispute regarding the number of depositions allowed for each side. The plaintiffs are seeking 60 depositions [3], arguing that this is necessary due to the unprecedented scale of alleged copyright infringement, where defendants [3], including Stability AI [1], are accused of directly copying their artwork to train AI image products for commercial gain [1].
Recent legal rulings have indicated that the transformation of copyrighted works into algorithms during AI model training does not automatically exempt defendants from claims of infringement or fair use. In fact, the inclusion of plaintiffs’ works in an AI model [2], even when presented in a different medium, has been deemed insufficient to dismiss direct copyright infringement claims [2].
Conversely, the defendants maintain that the standard limit of 12 depositions should suffice at this stage of the proceedings [3]. They position themselves as leaders in the generative AI industry, highlighting their commitment to enhancing creative capabilities and making technology more accessible [1].
This controversy is further complicated by artists’ dissatisfaction with the use of AI in art competitions [1], which stems from the reliance of AI systems on vast amounts of copyrighted material for training. Additionally, the increasing market for licensing AI training data is being leveraged by plaintiffs to argue that unauthorized copying negatively impacts market dynamics [2], a point that has gained traction in judicial considerations [2].
There is also a growing critique of the perception that AI systems are objective [1], as they are inherently biased based on the data utilized in their training.
Conclusion
The Andersen v [3]. Stability AI case exemplifies the complex intersection of AI technology and copyright law, with significant implications for the creative industry. The outcome of this case could influence future legal standards regarding AI’s use of copyrighted material and impact the evolving market for AI training data. Additionally, it raises important questions about the objectivity and fairness of AI systems, given their reliance on potentially biased data.
References
[1] https://digitallawyering.substack.com/p/digital-lawyering-ai-and-art-february
[2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0e8c888b-defc-4569-a0de-50cc2b02993f
[3] https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/02/13/sarah-andersen-artist-plaintiffs-want-60-depositions-defendants-want-the-standard-12-for-their-employees/
