Stability AI won on what appears to be a technicality used by the judge for lack of a better legal precedent/doctrine.
How useful or justified are intellectual property rights anyway?
"Getty Images largely lost its lawsuit against Stability AI in Britain’s High Court, though it narrowly won on trademark infringement claims. The image library company had accused Stability of scraping 12 million images from its website without permission to train the Stable Diffusion image generator, but Getty dropped its primary copyright claims during the trial and lost its secondary copyright arguments.
The judge ruled that Stable Diffusion doesn’t infringe copyright because it doesn’t store or reproduce copyrighted works, but said Getty’s watermark appearing on some generated images constituted trademark infringement. Legal experts say the case leaves key questions about AI training and copyright unanswered, since Getty abandoned key claims before the judge could rule on whether using copyrighted material to train AI models is lawful. Getty is pursuing a separate copyright lawsuit against Stability in U.S. federal court." (Data Points newsletter)
"... The closely followed case at Britain’s High Court was among the first in a wave of lawsuits involving generative AI as movie studios, authors and artists challenged tech companies’ use of their works to train AI chatbots.
Tech companies have long argued that “fair use” or “fair dealing” legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images ..."
No comments:
Post a Comment