The case raises questions about the fair use doctrine in U.S. law, which allows copyrighted material to be quoted or copied without permission for purposes of commentary, criticism, or parody, or when they are sufficiently transformed to be considered a new work. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which ruled against the Warhol estate for using an image for commercial purposes without payment, could have implications for AI art. The decision suggests that AI developers may need to obtain permission and compensate creators if they want to use their works to train their AI systems.
Key takeaways:
- A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Midjourney and Stability AI, accusing them of using the names and styles of iconic artists, including Andy Warhol, in their AI-driven artwork.
- The plaintiffs claim that the generative AI technology used by Midjourney is essentially a copy-and-paste machine, and are demanding billions of dollars in compensation.
- Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment professor at Harvard Law School, suggests that the key question in the case is whether Midjourney's use of the artists' work constitutes fair use under U.S. law.
- The recent Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which found that the Warhol estate had erred in not paying for the use of a copyrighted image, could have significant implications for the future of AI art.