Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 442 posts

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#11

Post by gamblor956 »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #3

Why is Midjourney completely off the hook while Stability AI is not? I'm trying to pull up the original court document, but the PDF isnt loading.

The plaintiffs apparently failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to support their infringement claim against MTD, which is a rookie mistake.

Factual allegations at this point don't have to be correct (that's what discovery is for), but they do have to at least satisfy the legal requirements for each prong of a legal claim. In many legal pleadings, the plaintiffs will state, "upon information and belief, we [assert X factual allegation]" since they don't yet have the discovery to support a more specific factual allegation.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#12

Post by artninja1988 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #9

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe/... The dismissal of Deviant was inappropriate given that the case hasn't reached discovery yet. The dismissal was granted based on a substantive evaluation of the Defendant's assertions which is inappropriate at this early procedural stage of the case. (see e.g. page 10 where the judge evaluates the "plausibility" of alleged facts, and page 12 where he says…

Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#13

Post by starshadowx2 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #10
williamcotton wrote: post #4

Orrick also dismissed McKernan and Ortiz's copyright infringement claims entirely. Well, duh. The judge is helping out the plaintiffs in this case. A jury would have been easily convinced by the defense that no images produced by Stability's systems are visually derivative. The key is indeed what follows: The judge allowed Andersen to continue pursuing her key claim that Stability's alleged use of her work to train S…

No, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz because they didn't register their images for U.S. copyright, which is a foundational prerequisite for any copyright lawsuit (in the U.S.) This simply means that they need to register their images for copyright before they can re-join the case. ( https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyrigh... ) EDIT: reading the linked PDF further, and it appears that McK and O's l…

Isn't that linked case because they started to file for copyright and then sued rather than waiting for it to be completed first?

In this case they never filed in the first place, and it was dismissed with prejudice.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#14

Post by williamcotton »

gamblor956 wrote: post #10
williamcotton wrote: post #4

Orrick also dismissed McKernan and Ortiz's copyright infringement claims entirely. Well, duh. The judge is helping out the plaintiffs in this case. A jury would have been easily convinced by the defense that no images produced by Stability's systems are visually derivative. The key is indeed what follows: The judge allowed Andersen to continue pursuing her key claim that Stability's alleged use of her work to train S…

No, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz because they didn't register their images for U.S. copyright, which is a foundational prerequisite for any copyright lawsuit (in the U.S.) This simply means that they need to register their images for copyright before they can re-join the case. ( https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyrigh... ) EDIT: reading the linked PDF further, and it appears that McK and O's l…

I'll check PACER and read the actual ruling when I'm at work tomorrow, but yeah I'm interpreting "dismissed entirely" as "dismissed with prejudice".

You're entirely correct that if it was dismissed without prejudice the complaints on copyright infringement on the outputs could be amended and refiled.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#15

Post by gamblor956 »

artninja1988 wrote: post #12
gamblor956 wrote: post #9

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe/... The dismissal of Deviant was inappropriate given that the case hasn't reached discovery yet. The dismissal was granted based on a substantive evaluation of the Defendant's assertions which is inappropriate at this early procedural stage of the case. (see e.g. page 10 where the judge evaluates the "plausibility" of alleged facts, and page 12 where he says…

Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?

Getty has a much stronger case, given that warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images, so it's obvious that there was impermissible copying.

I'm not sure Stability will agree to a licensing fee, since part of the rationale for the last version of SD was to remove the infringing images from their training sets going forward.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#16

Post by starshadowx2 »

williamcotton wrote: post #14
gamblor956 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz because they didn't register their images for U.S. copyright, which is a foundational prerequisite for any copyright lawsuit (in the U.S.) This simply means that they need to register their images for copyright before they can re-join the case. ( https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyrigh... ) EDIT: reading the linked PDF further, and it appears that McK and O's l…

I'll check PACER and read the actual ruling when I'm at work tomorrow, but yeah I'm interpreting "dismissed entirely" as "dismissed with prejudice". You're entirely correct that if it was dismissed without prejudice the complaints on copyright infringement on the outputs could be amended and refiled.

This is from the PDF:

In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#17

Post by artninja1988 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #15
artninja1988 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?

Getty has a much stronger case, given that warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images, so it's obvious that there was impermissible copying. I'm not sure Stability will agree to a licensing fee, since part of the rationale for the last version of SD was to remove the infringing images from their training sets going forward.

Hmmm. What do you think the outcome will be then?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#18

Post by gumballindie »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #7

Intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing. If you still have it after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you, then it’s not real property. The easiest test of consistency is simply to ask about both piracy and AI training data. If you support IP in one case but not the other then you’re a hypocrite. There is no third option where your support of something depends not on what it is but who it benefits.

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sure you can use it, but according to the terms and conditions of the owner. Same goes for owning objects. You can use my car if i let you use my car.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#19

Post by alphanullmeric »

gumballindie wrote: post #18
alphanullmeric wrote: post #7

Intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing. If you still have it after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you, then it’s not real property. The easiest test of consistency is simply to ask about both piracy and AI training data. If you support IP in one case but not the other then you’re a hypocrite. There is no third option where your support of something depends not on what it is but who it benefits.

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sur…

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#20

Post by gumballindie »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #19
gumballindie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sur…

And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.

Well, by law, i do and you do owe me royalties. Hopefully these people hire better lawyers next time. Also people tend to get upset when their ownership of things is violated, pixels or otherwise.
Post reply on HN