I. General information
Date of Decision: 12.08.2024 – next Trial for discovery stage: 08.09.2026
Issuing Authority: United States District Court – Northern District of California
Category: Copyright – Copyright infringement of AI training data
Plaintiff/Appellant: Sarah Andersen
Defendant/Respondent: Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc. (collectively “Stability AI”), Midjourney, Inc., DeviantArt, Inc., and Runway AI, Inc.
Keyworks: AI; text mining; data mining; training data; damage; DMCA; U.S.
II. Dispute
Plaintiffs: Sarah Andersen and other visual artists (collective action).
Defendants: Stability AI Ltd., Midjourney Inc., DeviantArt Inc., Runway AI Inc.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully copied their artwork to train AI models without permission, resulting in copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and violation of the Lanham Act.
III. Legal basis
1. Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 106
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants copied and stored their works to train AI models such as Stable Diffusion and Midjourney.
The reproduction of the plaintiffs' artistic styles in the AI output constitutes copyright infringement.
2. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Violation – 17 U.S.C. § 1202
The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of removing or altering copyright management information (CMI) during the use of the works.
3. Lanham Act Violation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants used their names to promote AI models, creating the false impression that the artists endorse or are affiliated with the AI products.
IV. Judgement
The Northern District Court of California, presided over by Judge William H. Orrick, dismissed some claims but retained others:
✅ The copyright infringement claim will proceed because the plaintiffs provided evidence that the AI models can reproduce copyrighted works.
❌ The DMCA violation claim was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants actively removed or altered CMI.
✅ The Lanham Act violation claim will be considered due to the potential for confusion regarding the use of artists' names in the AI systems.
V. Remarks
This ruling opens the door to a deeper examination of how AI companies use copyrighted works to train their systems and whether these practices violate existing copyright laws.
