Read on Twitter
🚨 Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, Inc. have all filed their motions to dismiss the Anderson class action lawsuit 🚨
It's a lot to unpack, but here are some of my initial takeaways 🧵
#copyright #ArtificialIntelligence #GenerativeAI
It's a lot to unpack, but here are some of my initial takeaways 🧵
#copyright #ArtificialIntelligence #GenerativeAI
🔥 Registered Copyrights.
The parties seek to narrow the lawsuit to just copyrighted works that have been registered, which might remove Ortiz and McKernan as plaintiffs.
The parties seek to narrow the lawsuit to just copyrighted works that have been registered, which might remove Ortiz and McKernan as plaintiffs.
It's established that to bring a copyright infringement claim in federal court, a copyright owner must first register their work with the U.S. Copyright Office and obtain the completed registration.
🔥 Infringing Outputs.
A key question is whether there is an actual infringement or substantial similarity that can be shown from an output. Stability AI and Midjoruney argue it has not yet been proven.
A key question is whether there is an actual infringement or substantial similarity that can be shown from an output. Stability AI and Midjoruney argue it has not yet been proven.
Also, Midjourney pushes back against the argument that because the outputs are "derived from" the images used to train its model, then that means the outputs are therefore derivative works.
Midjourney writes: "Plaintiffs thus falsely equivocate between “derivative work” as a copyright concept, and “derivative work” as a term they made up to describe all output created by Defendants’ users."
🔥 Who knew.
Is there a specific example of removing copyright management information (CMI)? Stability AI argues that hasn't been provided, so the CMI claims should be dismissed.
Is there a specific example of removing copyright management information (CMI)? Stability AI argues that hasn't been provided, so the CMI claims should be dismissed.
Stability AI also wrote: "Plaintiffs do not make any plausible factual allegations that the Stability Defendants were aware Plaintiffs’ allegedly copyrighted works were scraped" 🧐
🔥 Service Provider Liability.
DeviantArt's, under Rule 8(a)(2), relies upon the facts it presents that DeviantArt was not involved in development of Stability AI's models & use of the LAION dataset, or CMI removal. Instead, DeviantArt = end user licensee of the Stability tech
DeviantArt's, under Rule 8(a)(2), relies upon the facts it presents that DeviantArt was not involved in development of Stability AI's models & use of the LAION dataset, or CMI removal. Instead, DeviantArt = end user licensee of the Stability tech
DeviantArt has also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the rights of publicity claims, to which Stability AI and Midjourney have both joined.
The motion argues: (1) Copyright Act preemption; (2) lack of conduct that would lead to legal liability under the statutes; and (3) First Amendment bars the claims.
Check out all the recent filings on CourtListener: courtlistener.com/docket/6673212…
I also combined all three into one PDF over on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/feed/update/ur…
I also combined all three into one PDF over on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/feed/update/ur…
The important work began after I posted my recap of these filings 😂
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
