[kmoser]

Lots to comment on but this stood out:

> “A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.”

Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.

[bawolff]

> Most generative AI corpora were arguably trained on copyrighted material, making the output potentially infringing.

Training is not neccesarily sufficient for it to be a derrivative work, just like if you learned to draw based on famous drawings doesn't mean every single drawing you ever made is infringing.

Obviously there are cases where it could be infringing, its going to depend how close the output is to the original.

I guess it depends on how you read the post, is it saying use gen-AI to intentionally recreate the photo, something that sounds danger-zone, or are they saying use gen-ai to make some other photo suitable for purpose?

[ghaff]

I'm largely out of this space now but my understanding is that some copyright cases around model training are winding through courts but I haven't seen anything definitive come out. The IP lawyers I know are skeptical but we'll see.

[p_l]

EU AI Act is moving towards genAI output being non-copyrightable and that you'd need to actually prove derivative character from a specific copyrighted work(s) to claim infringement.

AFAIK american law is going towards similar setup.

[ghaff]

IANAL but, yes, with US/UK (i.e. common law regimes) that's something along my understanding as well. Which I generally agree with even if some/many readers here probably do not. Of course, output being copyrightable and copyright infringement on the inputs are two different things.

[p_l]

An important point in copyright infringement is that it generally applies on distribution to other parties.

So the process of acquiring inputs may or may not be an infringement, but with at least proposed EU rules it does not matter to created model itself.

The exception being that output it produces is judged similar to infringement as human output without any "transformative work" credit to model - so similar to how a human could learn a book or painting to memory and close enough reproduction from memory would be infringement, but not generally using the ideas taken from them

[lelandfe]

Sometimes human writers sit down to write and accidentally end up verbatim reproducing an NYT paywalled article, too, and no one bats an eye, but AI does it and allll of a sudden we’re in court? Poppycock!

[FanaHOVA]

There is plenty of precedent being written here. It does not seem to be the case at all for the average use of this technology.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

[jterrys]

Ye olde double edged sword

On one hand aggressively punitive copyright claims stifle creativity and innovation in transformative art. On the other hand, generative AI reopens that transformative creativity.

[tadfisher]

Reminder that the original copyright term was 14 years, with a single 14-year extension.

If this were still the norm, it would feel crazy that blockbuster movie studios are still recycling comic book characters from the 1950s.

[rectang]

Even if the specific image being infringed were not in the corpus, it's possible that a court would return a judgment of copyright infringement.

Consider the case where someone deliberately prompts the AI to build a facsimile image and the AI does a creditable job after some tweaking.

[CrimsonRain]

same goes for anything you output :)

[ralph84]

Except everyone who has tried to argue that in court has lost.

[jagged-chisel]

Has this been argued? I'd love to read some actual court decisions.

[akramachamarei]

Here are some cases (mined from Wikipedia sources):

Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal.) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2023cv...)

Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...)

Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...)

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00135 (D. Del.) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv001...)

The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.) (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...)

Richard Kadrey et al. v. Meta (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25984135-richard-kad...)

Bartz v. Anthropic (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982181-authors-v-a...)

---

Further reading:

"Generative AI Systems Tee Up Fair Use Fight" (Feb 2024) https://natlawreview.com/article/generative-ai-systems-tee-f...

"Meta’s AI copyright win comes with a warning about fair use

The federal judge who ruled in Meta’s favor still isn’t convinced its use of copyrighted materials for AI training qualifies as fair use." (Jan 2025) https://www.theverge.com/news/693437/meta-ai-copyright-win-f...

"Anthropic wins a major fair use victory for AI — but it’s still in trouble for stealing books

Judge William Alsup determined that Anthropic training its AI models on purchased copies of books is fair use." (Jun 2025) https://www.theverge.com/news/692015/anthropic-wins-a-major-...

"Copyright Office Weighs in on AI and Fair Use Amid Major Leadership Shakeup" (May 2025) https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/12/copyright-office-weighs-ai...

[AnimalMuppet]

I respect Alsup on tech issues.

But aren't all of these initial decisions? That is, I don't expect that this is decided until there's a Supreme Court decision. There's still two levels of appeal to go before we get there.

[qingcharles]

Certainly the first five above all look to be trial court decisions which generally aren't citable law, but can be informative. It will almost certainly get to the Supreme Court at some point, it's too big an issue; until then we'll (probably) have a couple of different appellate court opinions to wait for.

[akramachamarei]

I guess that depends on whether these cases are being appealed or if there is a "circuit split." Which is to say, those are the conditions I'm aware of under which a lower court decision does not constitute a decision decision.

As always, IANAL, but I do listen to their podcasts often (IANALBIDLTTPO)