AI, Media, Entertainment & Tech Expert, Dealmaker, Business Consultant, Lawyer, Connector
Okay people. Here's what I find to be the most interesting part of Judge Orrick's ruling (and the one that hasn't received the attention it deserves). And it's important for ANY COMPANY that provides generative AI tools based on the tools of others (like Stability AI). BOTTOM LINE: THE COURT OPENED THE DOOR TO POTENTIAL "SECONDARY LIABILITY" for the use of the infringing generative AI products of others! (I've read the entire Court ruling - and am an IP attorney by trade - so feel that I can convey the issues accurately). Specifically, the Judge addressed whether the copyright infringement claims against DeviantArt, Inc. could go forward and survive its Motion to Dismiss, even when DeviantArt itself is NOT alleged to have trained any genAI model (but instead is alleged to have "simply to have implemented and used the AI tools provided by Stability AI and others."). DeviantArt had argued that copyright infringement claims must be dismissed as a matter of law because it did not itself do the purportedly infringing training. It had argued that "holding it liable for that conduct would make the millions of third parties who have downloaded and implemented the AI products challenged in this case -- many of which are open source software -- liable for infringement, which is unsupportable." The Judge REJECTED that argument in the context of DeviantArt's Motion to Dismiss on BOTH the "input" and "output" sides of the equation -- allowing it to move forward. On the "input" side, in the Judge's words, "The actual operation of Stable Diffusion 1.4 and whether the amount of any plaintiff's copyrighted works in that program suffices for copyright infringement or a fair use defense concerning #DeviantArt remains to be tested at summary judgment." And on the "output" side, the Judge wrote that whether DeviantArt's "Dream Up" software "operates in a way that could draw upon or otherwise reproduce plaintiffs' works to an extent that violates the Copyright Act and whether a fair use defense applies are issues that must be tested on an evidentiary basis" at the summary judgment phase. Want to learn more on a continuing basis? Subscribe to my generative AI and media/entertainment focused newsletter called "the brAIn" on Substack. https://lnkd.in/gtsk8AH8 #copyright #infringement #media #entertainment #music #hollywood Edward Lee
Law prof. AI, IP, BTC, crypto, DeFi, art, music, digital assets, finance. The Original Public Meaning of Investment Contract. Authorship in the Age of AI. AI and the Sound of Music. ChatGPTiseatingtheworld.com
BREAKING NEWS: Judge Orrick denies motion to dismiss copyright and Lanham Act claims in Sarah Andersen v. Stability AI. Allows copyright claims on outputs/compressed copies and active inducement theories (in addition to the training copies, which were not a part of the motion to dismiss). Major win for Sarah Andersen and the other artist plaintiffs. DMCA CMI claims dismissed with prejudice. Contract theories dismissed with prejudice. Unjust enrichment dismissed with leave to amend. All told, a major win for Sarah Andersen and the other artist plaintiffs. Got the federal claims they wanted most. Discovery is next. Buckle up. 💺 Download PDF court order in the link below. 👇🏽 https://lnkd.in/g65F8S5M
Hi Peter, with full respect, this was entirely expected. It is not a dramatic reveal. You seem to imply that this spells doom for the AI companies and those who use the AI models, but it is way too early to make that call. From the outset of this case, the Judge has been consistently clear that there are important questions of fact about the infringement claims on both input and output; that is why there must be a trial. Nothing has changed. But that trial has not yet been held, which means it is too early to opine on the outcome. It's entirely possible that a fair use defense will prevail; conversely, as you've said many times, it is also entirely possible that the new SCOTUS ruling in the Goldsmith/Warhol case will weaken those fair use claims. Again, too early to call. Nobody knows what will happen until there is a trial... and the inevitable appeals. It's worth noting that this judge has thrown out ALL other claims made by the plaintiffs. He had some sharp criticisms for the attorneys who represent the plaintiffs, particularly for their novel theory of infringement. I think you'll agree with me that those other claims were ludicrous and poorly drafted. In sum, this judge seems even-handed.