Stable Diffusion is a deep learning, text-to-image model released last year (Express photo) Stability AI and Midjourney, the companies behind AI image tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney, have been sued for allegedly violating the “rights of millions of artists” by using millions of copyrighted images with “no consent, no credit, and no compensation.” The defendants also include DeviantArt, which recently launched DreamUp, a paid generative AI tool built around Stable Diffusion. The plaintiffs are three artists – Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz – whose work has allegedly been used to train these AI tools.
Andersen is the creator of the popular semi-autobiographical comic strip Sarah’s Scribbles, McKernan is an independent artist who creates watercolor and gouache paintings for galleries, and Ortiz is a concept artist whose work has been showcased in notable art galleries.
The lawsuit alleges that these companies through the use of their products, “benefit commercially and profit richly from the use of copyrighted images.” The plaintiffs seek to “end this blatant and enormous infringement of their rights before their professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely by their hard work.”
The suit has been filed by Matthew Butterick who earlier also helped file a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot for its “unprecedented open-source software piracy.” The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and damage recovery, although the amount hasn’t been specified.
A blog has been put up, describing the litigation. The blog calls Stable Diffusion “a parasite that, if allowed to proliferate, will cause irreparable harm to artists, now and in the future.” It also tries to describe how diffusion – the process used by AI image tools to generate new images – works similarly to compression formats MP3 and JPEG, which rely on lossy compression.
“Diffusion is a way for an AI program to figure out how to reconstruct a copy of the training data through denoising. Because this is so, in copyright terms it’s no different than an MP3 or JPEG—a way of storing a compressed copy of certain digital data,” the blog reads.
While the lawsuit doesn’t specify any amount in damages, the blog suggests that since Stable Diffusion contains unauthorized copies of millions of images, the value of the misappropriation could be around $5 billion. The figure was arrived at by assuming nominal damages of $1 per image.
While proving that AI image generators are copyright infringement can be tricky, the wider ethical concerns around the technology are harder still to substantiate. It’s a hotly debated topic. On one hand, the technology has the potential to replace the professions of many artists, while on the other, it can be used by artists themselves to better express their ideas and story.
Stable Diffusion is currently facing another lawsuit filed by visual media company Getty Images, which has accused the AI tool of copyright violations. The suit alleges that Stability AI “unlawfully copied and processed” millions of images that were protected by copyright.