Technology news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Artists are lawyering up against AI slop, and some are even winning
A growing wave of writers, illustrators and musicians is taking artificial intelligence companies to court over the unauthorised use of their work to train AI models, with several lawsuits progressing and some artists claiming early wins. The Verge profiles a number of these cases, including that of author Kirk Wallace Johnson, who discovered his books had been pirated and used to train a chatbot after The Atlantic published a searchable dataset of training material. The dispute matters because it is testing, in real time, how copyright law applies to generative AI, with implications for how much protection creators will have as the technology becomes more embedded in everyday use.
Cases cited include a class action brought since January 2023 by cartoonist Sarah Andersen, Karla Ortiz, Kelly McKernan and other visual artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt and Runway AI, as well as separate legal action against Anthropic led by law firm Susman Godfrey on behalf of authors. Other artists have since launched similar claims against Meta, Google and AI music generator Suno, mostly on copyright grounds though some also cite breaches of terms of service. Outcomes have been mixed, with wins, losses and lengthy delays largely hinging on how courts interpret "fair use," but those involved remain broadly optimistic that the litigation will help shape clearer legal boundaries for AI development.
In short
- Artists are suing AI firms over unauthorised use of their work
- Cases target Anthropic, Meta, Google, Stability, Midjourney, Suno and others
- Results are mixed, but many artists expect legal clarity to follow
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Artists argue that their work represents genuine creative effort and intellectual property, and they should have the right to control how it is used and to be compensated when others profit from it. When AI companies train models on millions of copyrighted images, writing and music without permission or compensation, they are effectively building commercial products on the back of creators' labour, undermining both the ability of artists to earn from their work and the incentive structure that has historically sustained creative industries. This is not merely a question of copyright technicality but of fundamental fairness: creators deserve agency over their creations and the economic benefits that flow from them.
The case against
Proponents of the current AI development model contend that training AI on existing works is a genuinely transformative use that falls within established fair use principles, much as previous technologies like search engines and digital libraries have done. They argue that AI development is beneficial to society and that overly restrictive copyright interpretations could chill innovation and prevent the creation of increasingly useful tools that can ultimately serve creators themselves. The precedent of allowing research and development on existing works without permission—from academic citation to reverse engineering—suggests that some forms of secondary use should be permitted without individual licensing, provided the original works are not simply reproduced but genuinely transformed into new systems.
Explained simply
A growing group of artists, authors and musicians is suing artificial intelligence companies, claiming their creative work was used without permission to train AI systems. These lawsuits matter because they are testing how copyright law applies to generative AI, which could determine what rights and protections creators have as the technology becomes more common in everyday life.
The cases involve major AI firms including Stability AI, Midjourney, Anthropic, Meta and Google. Writers, illustrators and musicians argue that their copyrighted work was fed into AI systems without consent to make those systems work better, and that this violates copyright law. Some artists, like author Kirk Wallace Johnson, discovered their published books appeared in datasets used to train AI chatbots.
The courts are still working through these cases, and outcomes have been mixed so far. Much depends on how judges interpret "fair use," a principle that sometimes allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Artists bringing the lawsuits say they remain hopeful that the courts will establish clearer rules about what AI companies can and cannot do with creative work.
AI Art Culture Entertainment Music Technology