A group of visual artists can continue pursuing certain claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI, alleging that these companies’ AI-based image generation systems infringe on their copyrights, according to a ruling on Monday by a California federal judge.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that the artists presented a plausible argument that the companies violated their rights by illegally storing their works on their systems.
Orrick also upheld related trademark-law claims but dismissed other allegations, including claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of a separate U.S. copyright law.
The ruling did not address the artists’ central claim that the companies’ alleged misuse of their work to train AI systems directly infringes on their copyrights. It also did not rule on the key defense that AI companies argue—that their use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use.
Representatives from Stability and an attorney for Midjourney declined to comment on the decision, while spokespeople and attorneys for the other companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Attorneys Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick, representing the artists, described the decision as “a significant step forward for the case.” Illustrators Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz initially filed the lawsuit last January, marking one of the first high-profile cases against tech companies over the use of copyrighted work in AI training. Although Judge Orrick dismissed many of their allegations in October, he allowed the artists to refile their claims.
In November, Andersen, McKernan, Ortiz, and seven other artists filed an amended complaint, arguing that Stability’s Stable Diffusion model, which all the companies use, unlawfully contains “compressed copies” of their works used in training. In a tentative ruling in May, Orrick indicated he was inclined to allow the copyright allegations to proceed. On Monday, he elaborated that the companies could not dismiss the claims at this early stage of the case.
“The plausible inferences at this juncture are that Stable Diffusion, by operation by end users, creates copyright infringement and was created to facilitate that infringement by design,” Orrick stated.
The case is Andersen v. Stability AI, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-00201.
