In a key development for the ongoing legal clash between visual artists and artificial intelligence companies, a California federal judge has ruled that claims of copyright infringement can proceed. On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick granted the artists’ request to continue pursuing allegations against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI.
Judge Orrick’s decision stems from the argument that these companies may have unlawfully stored and used the artists’ works in their AI image generation systems. While Orrick dismissed claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of a separate copyright law, he preserved the core issue of potential copyright infringement and related trademark-law claims.
The ruling did not address whether the alleged misuse of artwork for AI training directly infringes on copyrights or whether the AI companies’ use constitutes fair use. No comments were made by representatives from Stability AI or Midjourney regarding the ruling, and other companies involved have yet to respond.
Artists including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz first initiated this lawsuit in January, targeting the use of their copyrighted work in AI systems. Though many claims were initially dismissed, the artists refiled in November, arguing that the Stable Diffusion model, used across the companies, unlawfully incorporated “compressed copies” of their works for training purposes.
Judge Orrick’s tentative ruling in May signaled a positive direction for the artists, and Monday’s decision reinforces that the case against the AI companies will move forward. Orrick noted that the evidence suggests Stable Diffusion could facilitate copyright infringement, emphasizing that this issue merits further examination.
The case, Andersen v. Stability AI, remains a pivotal battle in the broader fight over AI and copyright law.
