The Legal Frontier of AI Art
AI Art in the Courts
Some of the backlash in response to generative AI art comes in the form of precedent-setting lawsuits. From visual artists to programmers and authors, people are testing the limits of intellectual property law. Here’s three examples:
Key examples
-
Artists vs. Stability AI & Midjourney
The work of visual artists was scraped without permission to train AI models, resulting in outputs that mimic their unique styles. While some claims have been dismissed, the central issue of unauthorized data use remains unresolved. Read more -
Getty Images vs. Stability AI
Getty Images alleges that Stability AI unlawfully used millions of its photos to develop its AI model, even reproducing watermarks in some outputs. With cases pending in both the UK and the US, the outcome could redefine how training data is sourced. Read more -
Thaler v U.S. Copyright Office
In a landmark decision, courts ruled that works created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted because copyright law requires human authorship. This ruling underscores the need for a reexamination of copyright boundaries in the age of AI. Read more
Impact
These lawsuits aren’t just isolated legal skirmishes - they could set important precedents for the regulation of AI content and training in the future. Plaintiff-favoured rulings could force AI developers to secure licenses or alter how datasets are constructed, while wins for the defense might solidify current practices under fair use doctrines.
As these cases progress, they will undoubtedly shape the future of art, creativity, and law in the digital age.