The first two court cases are being filed against platforms that create visual content through artificial intelligence
Getty, the world’s largest photo agency, and a class-action lawsuit led by three illustrators bring major AI platforms to court in the US and UK
The artists said “enough” to using artificial intelligence (AI) in their work. In the US, three illustrators – including a digital storyboard creator Sarah doodles– have filed a class action lawsuit against three large AI “generators” of visual content whose lawyers believe they can earn up to 4.6 billion euros. For its part, Getty Images, one of the most important photo agencies in the world, decided to refer the case to the UK courts, alleging “violation” of the copyright that protects its content.
So that companies AI stabilityAnd deviantart s mid-flight To fuel their AI tools, you need a massive amount of data to serve as a reference. And if these companies are allowed to continue to develop their business model as usual, say lawyers for the lawsuit filed in the US, the sector will find itself “with a parasite that, if allowed to grow, will cause irreparable damage to artists now and in the future.”
Over the past months, gadgets have appeared Online So that artists can see if their work has been used to train AI, and whether they can, therefore, join the process to claim eventual future compensation. Row lawyers in the United States appreciate it If these companies had to pay €1 for each image used, the final compensation could be €4,600m.
Not everyone who is likely to be affected will realize, however, because the problem is the obscurantism with which some of these platforms, who make money from the images they produce, maintain the formation of those repositories.
Emad Mostaki, founder of Stability AI, the company behind Stable Diffusion, admitted in an interview with the BBC that they used “100,000 gigabytes of images” obtained from the internet. And according to Getty, this Prosecution filed suit in the High Court of Justice, Londona large number of them would be their collaborators and it was possible to use it without paying the corresponding license.
“Stability AI has illegally copied and processed millions of copyrighted images, to the detriment of their creators. This is not to say that we are against archetypes of photography, but rather that we believe that the path must be taken in a responsible and legal way to feed it,” they explain from GT‘, where they noted that ‘artists should feel upheld by the law and have a say in how their work is used’.
Those who seem most vulnerable to AI-generated content are illustrators, because their work is easier for technology to imitate than a real photo. That’s why Sarah Andersen, creator of the popular digital storyboard Sarah doodlesCarla Ortiz, contributor to Marvel Film Studios and the popular card game Charmamong others, and Kelly McKiernan, who worked for Weird thingsGoFundMe campaign a month ago that was really successful.
At the end of 2022, they decided to come together to try to raise money and file the first lawsuit of its kind against AI platforms in the US, and so far, they have already raised more than 200,000 euros and taken the first step in court.
The fact that the case will be brought to justice in both the UK and the US will test two pieces of legislation that experts say are not quite up to the challenge of AI. By not copying a work exactly, plagiarism is hard to justify.
Artists are not completely protected from this legally. He explained to EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA that the law does not protect the way things are done or the sensations conveyed by creativity, but simply the work itself. Andres Guadamuza professor at the University of Sussex specializing in intellectual property and one of the first to warn of the legal “loopholes” that have arisen in this regard.
“The only way they have to protect themselves is by explicitly requiring that their work not be used to teach AI,” legislation passed European Union In 2019″, he points out the possibilities that Spanish artists have to defend in their works.
However, other legal experts who have spoken on the subject point out, “For hundreds of years, human artists learned by copying the art of their ancestors,” and thus, “at no time has the law prosecuted those who have copied an artistic style.”