Artificial intelligence is transforming industries, but it is also raising new legal concerns in the world of intellectual property. A growing number of lawsuits challenge the way AI companies use copyrighted material to train models, particularly in creative fields like visual arts. These cases will shape how intellectual property laws apply to AI and determine what protections exist for original creators—a major moment across industries that rely heavily on original content and unique creative styles.

Artists Pursue Copyright Infringement Cases

In 2023, visual artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz took legal action against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, claiming their copyrighted works were used without consent to train AI models. Their lawsuit alleges that AI-generated images mimic their distinctive styles, effectively allowing users to create derivative works without credit or compensation. The case has since expanded to include additional artists and another AI company, demonstrating the widespread concerns among creative professionals about how their intellectual property is being used.

The plaintiffs argue that AI platforms rely on vast datasets containing copyrighted images, which serve as the foundation for training generative models. The AI companies, however, claim that their models do not store exact copies of original works but rather learn general artistic patterns. Still, many artists believe that the output images resemble their own work so closely that they infringe upon their creative rights.

The court initially found the complaint insufficient in certain aspects but permitted the artists to amend and clarify their claims, highlighting the legal challenges of determining AI’s role in copyright law. The outcome of this case and others like it will set a major precedent for future disputes regarding AI and intellectual property rights. For a look at the case docket and the opportunity to attend some of the hearings in the case, see Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., 3:23-cv-00201 – CourtListener.com

When AI Generates Art in the Unique Style of an Artist

AI art generators have the ability to produce images that imitate an artist’s signature style, blurring the line between inspiration and infringement. Users can enter prompts specifying a particular artistic style, effectively allowing them to bypass commissioning original works from human creators—and avoiding the perception of exactly copying their actual work. This raises serious concerns about the impact on artists’ careers, as AI-generated art can saturate the market with lookalike pieces that reduce demand for authentic works.

The lawsuit against AI companies highlights internal communications suggesting that developers intentionally designed these tools to mimic specific artists. Some platforms even encouraged users to reference well-known creators in their prompts. AI companies maintain that their technology does not directly copy existing works, but plaintiffs argue that the AI’s ability to generate similar images undermines their artistic identity and marketability. 

In my opinion, the policy behind the copyright law clearly favors the artists’ position on this issue, but Congress will need to amend the Copyright Act to directly address such issues created by generative AI.

Who is Responsible: The Person Writing the Prompt or the AI Program Generating the Result

One of the most pressing legal questions surrounding AI-generated art is determining liability. Does the responsibility fall on the AI companies that built and trained these models, or does it fall on the individual users who enter prompts? Or is it split between the two? 

AI companies often argue that they are merely providing a tool, much like a paintbrush or a camera, leaving legal responsibility to the users. Their terms and conditions often say as much. However, the plaintiffs counter that these tools were specifically engineered to generate images that closely resemble copyrighted works, making the companies accountable for the outcomes.

Courts will likely consider whether the process of AI training itself constitutes copyright infringement. Training AI models requires gathering enormous datasets, often by scraping publicly available images. If these datasets contain copyrighted works and the AI companies use them without proper licensing, the companies may be liable regardless of how individual users deploy the technology.

At the same time, AI-generated content could challenge long-held copyright norms, forcing lawmakers to reconsider how existing regulations apply to machine learning systems that don’t operate like traditional artists.

POWER YOUR IDEAS® Through the Rise of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the way we create, innovate, and protect intellectual property. As legal battles over AI-generated content continue, business leaders and creatives must stay informed about how evolving laws may impact their industries. Whether you need guidance on copyright protection, licensing strategies, or AI’s implications for your business, our firm is ready to help. Contact IP Works Law today to discuss how to protect your creative assets in the age of artificial intelligence.