Orrick questioned whether Midjourney and DeviantArt, which offers use of Stable Diffusion through their own apps and websites, can be liable for direct infringement if the AI system “contains only algorithms and instructions that can be applied to the creation of images that include only a few elements of a copyrighted” work.
Though defendants made a “strong case” that claim should be dismissed without an opportunity to be reargued, Orrick noted artists’ contention that AI tools can create material that are similar enough to their work to be misconstrued as fakes.
Regarding the right of publicity claim, which takes issue with defendants profiting off of plaintiffs’ names by allowing users to request art in their style, the judge stressed that there’s not enough information supporting arguments that the companies used artists’ identities to advertise products.
While it mostly focuses on reporting requirements over the national security risks some companies’ systems present, it also recommends the watermarking of photos, video and audio developed by AI tools to protect against deep fakes.
“The inclusion of copyright and intellectual property protection in the AI Executive Order reflects the importance of the creative community and IP-powered industries to America’s economic and cultural leadership,” said the Human Artistry Campaign in a statement.
At a meeting in July, leading AI companies voluntarily agreed to guardrails to manage the risks posed by the emerging technology in a bid by the White House to get the industry to regulate itself in the absence of legislation instituting limits around the development of the new tools.
The original article contains 1,104 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Orrick questioned whether Midjourney and DeviantArt, which offers use of Stable Diffusion through their own apps and websites, can be liable for direct infringement if the AI system “contains only algorithms and instructions that can be applied to the creation of images that include only a few elements of a copyrighted” work.
Though defendants made a “strong case” that claim should be dismissed without an opportunity to be reargued, Orrick noted artists’ contention that AI tools can create material that are similar enough to their work to be misconstrued as fakes.
Regarding the right of publicity claim, which takes issue with defendants profiting off of plaintiffs’ names by allowing users to request art in their style, the judge stressed that there’s not enough information supporting arguments that the companies used artists’ identities to advertise products.
While it mostly focuses on reporting requirements over the national security risks some companies’ systems present, it also recommends the watermarking of photos, video and audio developed by AI tools to protect against deep fakes.
“The inclusion of copyright and intellectual property protection in the AI Executive Order reflects the importance of the creative community and IP-powered industries to America’s economic and cultural leadership,” said the Human Artistry Campaign in a statement.
At a meeting in July, leading AI companies voluntarily agreed to guardrails to manage the risks posed by the emerging technology in a bid by the White House to get the industry to regulate itself in the absence of legislation instituting limits around the development of the new tools.
The original article contains 1,104 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!