Artists File Class Action Lawsuit Against AI Image Generator Giants | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Art

Artists File Class Action Lawsuit Against AI Image Generator Giants

Published

 on

Artists have filed a class action lawsuit targeted at Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, who have released artificial intelligence powered image generators that can transform simple text prompts into convincingly rendered images.

In a complaint filed last week with the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, artists Karla Ortiz, Kelly Mckernan, and Sarah Andersen, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, claim that the aforementioned companies have violated copyright laws by using their images, along with those of tens of thousands of other artists, to train their image generators and produce derivative works. The plaintiffs claim that these companies have infringed on 17 U.S. Code § 106, exclusive rights in copyrighted works, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and are in violation of the Unfair Competition law.

“Though the rapid success of Stable Diffusion has been partly reliant on a great leap forward in computer science, it has been even more reliant on a great leap forward in appropriating copyrighted images,” the complaint reads.

All three companies mentioned have built their AI image generators on a software library called Stable Diffusion, which was developed by Stability AI. This model is built on a technological process called “diffusion” where the program is first trained to be able to reconstruct images that it has been fed. Then it can generate new images when a prompt in input.

“The primary goal of a diffusion model is to reconstruct copies of the training data with maximum accuracy and fidelity to the Training Image,” the complaint reads. “It is meant to be a duplicate.”

The plaintiffs claim that these copied images are then used to create “derivative works,” a work that it “incorporate[s] enough of the original work that it obviously stems from the original,” in the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute’s definition. The image generators, according to the plaintiffs, are nothing but a “21st century collage tool” that has the potential to greatly damage artistic industries and was built off of protected works.

The complaint also alleges that these image generators have empowered users to create what they refer to as “fakes.” For example, after the Korean illustrator Kim Jung Gi died, a software developer who goes by the username 5you, used Stable Diffusion to create a model that could produce images in Kim’s style. Other artists have reported similar examples of users creating works in their styles.

There are several issues with the lawsuit as constructed, according to experts.

First, only specific images, not styles, are protected by copyright. Meanwhile, collage is a protected medium under “Fair Use,” a legal doctrine that creates exceptions to copyright law  “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” and “transformative” creative production.

Whether or not the lawsuit accurately characterizes diffusion is also in question.

“It is a common misconception that a machine learning model is just a storage of images that then generates a collage,” Dr. Andres Guadamuz, a reader in intellectual property law at the University of Sussex, wrote in a blog post on the complaint Sunday.

Instead, Guadamuz claims that the technology is too complex to be generalized in this way. Stable Diffusion, according to Guadamuz, does not store copied works even in early training. Rather, it stores data on how space and color relate to one another when representing certain objects, using what it “learned” from studying the training set.

This complex process when explained by experts during trial, he wrote, might undermine the argument in the complaint. And then it will be up to a judge, or a jury, to decide if those complexities are meaningfully distant from our understanding of plagiarism or if these models truly constitute fair use of copyrighted materials.

A spokesperson for Stability AI sent over the following comment, “Please note that we take these matters seriously. Anyone that believes that this isn’t fair use does not understand the technology and misunderstands the law.“

Meanwhile, Getty Images is now pursuing legal action against Stability AI as well for drawing training materials from their website, according to a recently published statement. A Stability AI spokesperson said the company was unable to field questions concerning the claim that Getty Images filed against them in the High Court of Justice in London since they haven’t yet been served the documents.

“It is unusual that we have been informed about this intended legal action via the press. We are still awaiting the service of any documents. Should we receive them, we will comment appropriately.”

Update 1/17/2023 4:31 PM: This article has been amended to include statements from Stability AI.

Source link

Continue Reading

Art

40 Random Bits of Trivia About Artists and the Artsy Art That They Articulate – Cracked.com

Published

 on


[unable to retrieve full-text content]

40 Random Bits of Trivia About Artists and the Artsy Art That They Articulate  Cracked.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Art

John Little, whose paintings showed the raw side of Montreal, dies at 96 – CBC.ca

Published

 on


[unable to retrieve full-text content]

John Little, whose paintings showed the raw side of Montreal, dies at 96  CBC.ca



Source link

Continue Reading

Art

A misspelled memorial to the Brontë sisters gets its dots back at last

Published

 on

 

LONDON (AP) — With a few daubs of a paintbrush, the Brontë sisters have got their dots back.

More than eight decades after it was installed, a memorial to the three 19th-century sibling novelists in London’s Westminster Abbey was amended Thursday to restore the diaereses – the two dots over the e in their surname.

The dots — which indicate that the name is pronounced “brontay” rather than “bront” — were omitted when the stone tablet commemorating Charlotte, Emily and Anne was erected in the abbey’s Poets’ Corner in October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II.

They were restored after Brontë historian Sharon Wright, editor of the Brontë Society Gazette, raised the issue with Dean of Westminster David Hoyle. The abbey asked its stonemason to tap in the dots and its conservator to paint them.

“There’s no paper record for anyone complaining about this or mentioning this, so I just wanted to put it right, really,” Wright said. “These three Yorkshire women deserve their place here, but they also deserve to have their name spelled correctly.”

It’s believed the writers’ Irish father Patrick changed the spelling of his surname from Brunty or Prunty when he went to university in England.

Raised on the wild Yorkshire moors, all three sisters died before they were 40, leaving enduring novels including Charlotte’s “Jane Eyre,” Emily’s “Wuthering Heights” and Anne’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.”

Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Society, welcomed the restoration.

“As the Brontës and their work are loved and respected all over the world, it’s entirely appropriate that their name is spelled correctly on their memorial,” she said.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version