Class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt

The core question is whether the use of artists' works to train AI models constitutes fair use under copyright law. Some sources argue that the transformative nature of AI-generated outputs supports fair use, while others contend that the outputs can closely resemble the originals, undermining this defense. [12], [14], [19]

The plaintiffs allege direct and vicarious copyright infringement, but the defendants have moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that they do not meet the legal standards for infringement. The outcome of this motion will significantly impact the case's trajectory. [11], [19], [20]

The legality of using user-generated content from platforms like DeviantArt for AI training raises questions about DMCA violations and the right of publicity. The plaintiffs argue that the companies did not obtain proper licenses for the use of their works. [12], [13], [16]

The economic implications of the lawsuit could reshape the business models of AI companies, particularly regarding licensing requirements and creator compensation. The plaintiffs argue that the current model unfairly exploits artists' works without compensation. [12], [16], [20]

Jurisdictional questions arise regarding the applicability of U.S. copyright law to international entities involved in the case. The defendants may argue that their operations in other jurisdictions complicate the enforcement of U.S. laws. [14], [19]