Deviantart and Midjourney Case
__
By: Sherlene Hiu
AI has seen widespread adoption across various domains, with art being a particularly popular medium. Users can generate prompts and customize details to create art according to their preferences. This trend has sparked ongoing debates between traditional artists and AI artists regarding the authenticity and creativity of the generated artworks. As AI continues to evolve and integrate into creative processes, the discussion surrounding its impact on artistic expression remains a topic of considerable contention and exploration.
In January 2023, artists Sarah Anderson, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz filed a lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and the art platform DeviantArt. They accused these organizations of using their AI tools on billions of artworks without permission. This widespread use of AI tools has led to an increase in AI-generated works resembling those of artists, raising copyright concerns. While AI offers creative freedom, it often incorporates elements of existing artworks without the artists’ consent, leading to unauthorized derivative works. The proliferation of AI-generated art, exemplified by platforms like GenAI, underscores the challenge of protecting artists’ rights in the digital age.
Many users opt for Midjourney and Stability AI tools due to their accessibility and user-friendly interface for creating specific works and media. The creators suggest that the software’s training includes copyrighted data, raising questions about fairness. Matthew Butterick, with the support of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, is leading the lawsuit alongside the artist trio to safeguard the art industry against copyright infringement. The case is under scrutiny for its interpretation of AI art models’ actions and how they present works based on original images. Butterick and the law firm argue that the tools create copies by combining data, while others contend that the models attempt to replicate original works based on the provided dataset.
Judge William Orrick of the US District dismissed the case’s end result in October 2023. Only one claim proceeded against Stability AI, but later shifted to a complaint about position. In May 2024, Judge Orrick ruled that claims could proceed against Midjourney and DeviantArt because their works were stored by the tools. This extended to DeviantArt’s defense for Stable Diffusion, which solely utilizes works for the DreamUp AI tool owned by DeviantArt. However, artists’ lawyers Laura Matson and Christopher Young argued that the images remained replicable and the tools could infringe copyright artworks by adapting and appropriating the art itself.
As tensions escalate between artists, DeviantArt, and Midjourney amid an ongoing case, the importance of copyright protection is underscored. While AI enables users to express their artistic interpretation and imagination freely, appropriating others’ work as one’s own carries significant repercussions. Despite arguments for technical use and study, similar cases highlight a divide between those who create independently and those who rely on tools and prompts. The ethical implications of AI’s use of artworks and its originality remain subjects of debate, shaping discussions in both the present and the future.
References:
Akers, T. (2024). DeviantArt and Midjourney deny wrongdoing in copyright infringement lawsuit over in AI image generators.
Vincent, J. (2023). AI art tools stable diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit.