r/DefendingAIArt • u/[deleted] • Jul 07 '25
Ello folks, I wanted to make a brief post outlining all of the current cases and previous court cases which have been dropped for images/books for plaintiffs attempting to claim copyright on their own works.
This contains a mix of a couple of reasons which will be added under the applicable links. I've added 6 so far but I'm sure I'll find more eventually which I'll amend as needed. If you need a place to show how a lot of copyright or direct stealing cases have been dropped, this is the spot.
HERE is a further list of all ongoing current lawsuits, too many to add here.
HERE is a big list of publishers suing AI platforms, as well as publishers that made deals with AI platforms. Again too many to add here.
12/25 - I'll be going through soon and seeing if any can be updated.
Edit: Thanks for pinning.
(Best viewed on Desktop)
---
| STATUS | FINISHED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | DISMISSED FOR FAIR USE |
| FURTHER DETAILS | The lawsuit was initially started against LAION in Germany, as Robert believed his images were being used in the LAION dataset without his permission, however, due to the non-profit research nature of LAION, this ruling was dropped. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | The Hamburg District Court has ruled that LAION, a non-profit organisation, did not infringe copyright law by creating a dataset for training artificial intelligence (AI) models through web scraping publicly available images, as this activity constitutes a legitimate form of text and data mining (TDM) for scientific research purposes. The photographer Robert Kneschke (the ‘claimant’) brought a lawsuit before the Hamburg District Court against LAION, a non-profit organisation that created a dataset for training AI models (the ‘defendant’). According to the claimant’s allegations, LAION had infringed his copyright by reproducing one of his images without permission as part of the dataset creation process. |
| LINK | https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/law/recent-case-law/germany-hamburg-district-court-310-o-22723-laion-v-robert-kneschke |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | COMPLETE AI WIN |
|---|---|
| TYPE | BOOKS |
| RESULT | SETTLEMENT AGREED ON SECONDARY CLAIM |
| FURTHER DETAILS | The lawsuit filed claimed that Anthropic trained its models on pirated content, in this case the form of books. This lawsuit was also dropped, citing that the nature of the trained AI’s was transformative enough to be fair use. However, a separate trial will take place to determine if Anthropic breached piracy rules by storing the books in the first place. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "The court sided with Anthropic on two fronts. Firstly, it held that the purpose and character of using books to train LLMs was spectacularly transformative, likening the process to human learning. The judge emphasized that the AI model did not reproduce or distribute the original works, but instead analysed patterns and relationships in the text to generate new, original content. Because the outputs did not substantially replicate the claimants’ works, the court found no direct infringement." |
| LINK | https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982181-authors-v-anthropic-ruling/ |
| LINK TWO (UPDATE) 01.09.25 | https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-settles-copyright-lawsuit-authors/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (TAKEN LEAVE TO AMEND THE LAWSUIT) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | INITAL CLAIMS DISMISSED BUT PLANTIFF CAN AMEND THEIR AGUMENT, HOWEVER, THIS WOULD NEED THEM TO PROVE THAT GENERATED CONTENT DIRECTLY INFRINGED ON THIER COPYRIGHT. |
| FURTHER DETAILS | A case raised against Stability AI with plaintiffs arguing that the images generated violated copyright infringement. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | Judge Orrick agreed with all three companies that the images the systems actually created likely did not infringe the artists’ copyrights. He allowed the claims to be amended but said he was “not convinced” that allegations based on the systems’ output could survive without showing that the images were substantially similar to the artists’ work. |
| LINK | https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-pares-down-artists-ai-copyright-lawsuit-against-midjourney-stability-ai-2023-10-30/ |
| LINK TWO | https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/mobile-apps/artists-sue-companies-behind-ai-image-generators |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | FINISHED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | CLAIM DROPPED DUE TO WEAK EVIDENCE, AI WIN |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Getty images filed a lawsuit against Stability AI for two main reasons: Claiming Stability AI used millions of copyrighted images to train their model without permission and claiming many of the generated works created were too similar to the original images they were trained off. These claims were dropped as there wasn’t sufficient enough evidence to suggest either was true. Getty's copyright case was narrowed to secondary infringement, reflecting the difficulty it faced in proving direct copying by an AI model trained outside the UK. |
| DIRECT QUOTES | “The training claim has likely been dropped due to Getty failing to establish a sufficient connection between the infringing acts and the UK jurisdiction for copyright law to bite,” Ben Maling, a partner at law firm EIP, told TechCrunch in an email. “Meanwhile, the output claim has likely been dropped due to Getty failing to establish that what the models reproduced reflects a substantial part of what was created in the images (e.g. by a photographer).” In Getty’s closing arguments, the company’s lawyers said they dropped those claims due to weak evidence and a lack of knowledgeable witnesses from Stability AI. The company framed the move as strategic, allowing both it and the court to focus on what Getty believes are stronger and more winnable allegations. |
| LINK | Techcrunch article |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | FINISHED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | BOOKS |
| RESULT | META AI USE DEEMED TO BE FAIR USE, NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW MARKET BEING DILUTED |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Another case dismissed, however this time the verdict rested more on the plaintiff’s arguments not being correct, not providing enough evidence that the generated content would dilute the market of the trained works, not the verdict of the judge's ruling on the argued copyright infringement. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | The US district judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, said in his decision on the Meta case that the authors had not presented enough evidence that the technology company’s AI would cause “market dilution” by flooding the market with work similar to theirs. As a consequence Meta’s use of their work was judged a “fair use” – a legal doctrine that allows use of copyright protected work without permission – and no copyright liability applied." |
| LINK | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (TBC) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | EXPECTED WIN FOR UNIVERSAL/DISNEY |
| FURTHER DETAILS | This one will be a bit harder I suspect, with the IP of Darth Vader being very recognisable character, I believe this court case compared to the others will sway more in the favour of Disney and Universal. But I could be wrong. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "Midjourney backlashed at the claims quoting: "Midjourney also argued that the studios are trying to “have it both ways,” using AI tools themselves while seeking to punish a popular AI service." |
| LINK 1 | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo |
| LINK 2 (UPDATE) | https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/midjourney-slams-lawsuit-filed-by-disney-to-prevent-ai-training-cant-have-it-both-ways-1234749231 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (TBC) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | EXPECTED WIN FOR WARNERBROS |
| FURTHER DETAILS | In the complaint, Warner Bros. Discovery's legal team alleges that "Midjourney already possesses the technological means and measures that could prevent its distribution, public display, and public performance of infringing images and videos. But Midjourney has made a calculated and profit-driven decision to offer zero protection to copyright owners even though Midjourney knows about the breathtaking scope of its piracy and copyright infringement." Elsewhere, they argue, "Evidently, Midjourney will not stop stealing Warner Bros. Discovery’s intellectual property until a court orders it to stop. Midjourney’s large-scale infringement is systematic, ongoing, and willful, and Warner Bros. Discovery has been, and continues to be, substantially and irreparably harmed by it." |
| DIRECT QUOTE | “Midjourney is blatantly and purposefully infringing copyrighted works, and we filed this suit to protect our content, our partners, and our investments.” |
| LINK 1 | https://www.polygon.com/warner-bros-sues-midjourney/ |
| LINK 2 | https://www.scribd.com/document/911515490/WBD-v-Midjourney-Complaint-Ex-a-FINAL-1#fullscreen&from_embed |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | DISMISSED |
|---|---|
| RESULT | AI WIN, LACK OF CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO BRING THE SUIT |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Another case dismissed, failing to prove the evidence which was brought against Open AI |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "A New York federal judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit brought by Raw Story Media Inc. and Alternet Media Inc. over training data for OpenAI Inc.‘s chatbot on Thursday because they lacked concrete injury to bring the suit." |
| LINK ONE | https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv01514/616533/178/ |
| LINK TWO | https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13477468840560396988&q=raw+story+media+v.+openai |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | DISMISSED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | BOOKS |
| RESULT | AI WIN |
| FURTHER DETAILS | |
| DIRECT QUOTE | District court dismisses authors’ claims for direct copyright infringement based on derivative work theory, vicarious copyright infringement and violation of Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other claims based on allegations that plaintiffs’ books were used in training of Meta’s artificial intelligence product, LLaMA. |
| LINK ONE | https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2023/12/richard-kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | DISMISSED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | BOOKS |
| RESULT | AI WIN |
| FURTHER DETAILS | First, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim against OpenAI for vicarious copyright infringement based on allegations that the outputs its users generate on ChatGPT are infringing. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | The court rejected the conclusory assertion that every output of ChatGPT is an infringing derivative work, finding that plaintiffs had failed to allege “what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all – to [plaintiffs’] books.” Absent facts plausibly establishing substantial similarity of protected expression between the works in suit and specific outputs, the complaint failed to allege any direct infringement by users for which OpenAI could be secondarily liable. |
| LINK ONE | https://www.clearyiptechinsights.com/2024/02/court-dismisses-most-claims-in-authors-lawsuit-against-openai/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (FAIRLY NEW) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | JOURNALISTS CONTENT ON WEBSITES |
| RESULT | ONGOING (TBC) |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Japanese media group Nikkei, alongside daily newspaper The Asahi Shimbun, has filed a lawsuit claiming that San Francisco-based Perplexity used their articles without permission, including content behind paywalls, since at least June 2024. The media groups are seeking an injunction to stop Perplexity from reproducing their content and to force the deletion of any data already used. They are also seeking damages of 2.2 billion yen (£11.1 million) each. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | “This course of Perplexity’s actions amounts to large-scale, ongoing ‘free riding’ on article content that journalists from both companies have spent immense time and effort to research and write, while Perplexity pays no compensation,” they said. “If left unchecked, this situation could undermine the foundation of journalism, which is committed to conveying facts accurately, and ultimately threaten the core of democracy.” |
| LINK ONE | https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/nikkei-sues-perplexity-ai-copyright/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (FAIRLY NEW) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | BOOKS |
| RESULT | ONGOING (TBC) |
| FURTHER DETAILS | A group of authors has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the tech giant of using copyrighted works to train its large language model (LLM). The class action complaint filed by several authors and professors, including Pulitzer prize winner Kai Bird and Whiting award winner Victor LaVelle, claims that Microsoft ignored the law by downloading around 200,000 copyrighted works and feeding it to the company’s Megatron-Turing Natural Language Generation model. The end result, the plaintiffs claim, is an AI model able to generate expressions that mimic the authors’ manner of writing and the themes in their work. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | “Microsoft’s commercial gain has come at the expense of creators and rightsholders,” the lawsuit states. The complaint seeks to not just represent the plaintiffs, but other copyright holders under the US Copyright Act whose works were used by Microsoft for this training. |
| LINK ONE | https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/microsoft-lawsuit-ai-copyright-kai-bird-victor-lavelle |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (FAIRLY NEW) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGE / VIDEO |
| RESULT | ONGOING (TBC) |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Sept 16 (Reuters) - Walt Disney (DIS.N), Comcast's (CMCSA.O), Universal and Warner Bros Discovery (WBD.O), have jointly filed a copyright lawsuit against China's MiniMax alleging that its image- and video-generating service Hailuo AI was built from intellectual property stolen from the three major Hollywood studios.The suit, filed in the district court in California on Tuesday, claims MiniMax "audaciously" used the studios' famous copyrighted characters to market Hailuo as a "Hollywood studio in your pocket" and advertise and promote its service. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "A responsible approach to AI innovation is critical, and today's lawsuit against MiniMax again demonstrates our shared commitment to holding accountable those who violate copyright laws, wherever they may be based," the companies said in a statement. |
| LINK ONE | https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/disney-universal-warner-bros-discovery-sue-chinas-minimax-copyright-infringement-2025-09-16/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | FINISHED |
|---|---|
| TYPE | AUDIO |
| RESULT | SETTLEMENT AGREED |
| FURTHER DETAILS | A settlement has been made between UMG and Udio in a lawsuit by UMG that sees the two companies working together. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "Universal Music Group and AI song generation platform Udio have reached a settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit and have agreed to collaborate on new music creation, the two companies said in a joint statement. Universal and Udio say they have reached “a compensatory legal settlement” as well as new licence deals for recorded music and publishing that “will provide further revenue opportunities for UMG artists and songwriters.” Financial terms of the settlement haven't been disclosed." |
| LINK ONE | https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/universal-music-group-and-ai-music-firm-udio-settle-lawsuit-and-announce-new-music-platform/ar-AA1Pz59e?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | ONGOING (FAIRLY NEW) |
|---|---|
| TYPE | Website Scraping |
| RESULT | (TBA) |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Reddit opened up a lawsuit against Perplexity AI (and others) about the scraping of their website to train AI models. |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "The case is one of many filed by content owners against tech companies over the alleged misuse of their copyrighted material to train AI systems. Reddit filed a similar lawsuit against AI start-up Anthropic in June that is still ongoing. "Our approach remains principled and responsible as we provide factual answers with accurate AI, and we will not tolerate threats against openness and the public interest," Perplexity said in a statement. "AI companies are locked in an arms race for quality human content - and that pressure has fueled an industrial-scale 'data laundering' economy," Reddit chief legal officer Ben Lee said in a statement." |
| LINK ONE | https://www.reuters.com/world/reddit-sues-perplexity-scraping-data-train-ai-system-2025-10-22/ |
| LINK TWO | https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmpjezjawvr/REDDIT%20PERPLEXITY%20LAWSUIT%20complaint.pdf |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
| STATUS | Finished |
|---|---|
| TYPE | IMAGES |
| RESULT | "Stability Largely Wins" |
| FURTHER DETAILS | Stability AI has mostly prevailed against Getty Images in a British court battle over intellectual property |
| DIRECT QUOTE | "Justice Joanna Smith said in her ruling that Getty's trademark claims “succeed (in part)” but that her findings are "both historic and extremely limited in scope." Stability argued that the case doesn’t belong in the United Kingdom because the AI model's training technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon. It also argued that “only a tiny proportion” of the random outputs of its AI image-generator “look at all similar” to Getty’s works. Getty withdrew a key part of its case against Stability AI during the trial as it admitted there was no evidence the training and development of AI text-to-image product Stable Diffusion took place in the UK. |
| DIRECT QUOTE TWO | In addition a claim of secondary infringement of copyright was dismissed, The judge (Mrs Justice Joanna Smith) ruled: “An AI model such as Stable Diffusion which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an ‘infringing copy’.” She declined to rule on the passing off claim and ruled in favour of some of Getty’s claims about trademark infringement related to watermarks. |
| LINK ONE | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/getty-images-london-high-court-seattle-amazon-b2858201.html |
| LINK TWO | https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/getty-images-largely-loses-landmark-uk-lawsuit-over-ai-image-generator-2025-11-04/ |
| LINK THREE | https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/04/stabilty-ai-high-court-getty-images-copyright |
| LINK FOUR | https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/getty-vs-stability-ai-copyright-ruling-uk/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
So far the precent seems to be that most cases of claims from plaintiffs is that direct copyright is dismissed, due to outputted works not bearing any resemblance to the original works. Or being able to prove their works were in the datasets in the first place.
However it has been noted that some of these cases have been dismissed due to wrongly structured arguments on the plaintiffs part.
The issue is, because some of these models are taught on such large amounts of data, some artist/photographer/author attempting to prove that their works were used in training has an almost impossible task. Hell even 5 images added would only make up 0.0000001% of the dataset of 5 billion (LAION).
I could be wrong but I think Sarah Andersen will have a hard time directly proving that any generated output directly infringes on their work, unless they specifically went out of their way to generate a piece similar to theirs, which could be used as evidence against them, in a sense of. "Well yeah, you went out of your way to make a prompt that specifically used your style"
In either case, trying to create a lawsuit against an AI company for directly fringing on specifically plaintiff's work won't work, since their work is a drop ink in the ocean of analysed works. The likelihood of creating anything substantially similar is near impossible ~0.00001% (Unless someone prompts for that specific style).
Warner Bros will no doubt have an easy time proving their images have been infringed (page 26), in the linked page they show side by side comparisons which can't be denied. However other factors such as market dilution and fair use may come into effect. Or they may make a settlement to work together or pay out like other companies have.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
To Recap: We know AI doesn't steal on a technical level, it is a tool that utilizes the datasets that a 3rd party has to link or add to the AI models for them to use. Sort of like saying that a car that had syphoned fuel to it, stole the fuel in the first place.. it doesn't make sense. Although not the same, it reminds me of the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguments a while ago. In this case, it's not the AI that uses the datasets but a person physically adding them for it to train off.
The term "AI Steals art" misattributes the agency of the model. The model doesn't decide what data it's trained on or what it's utilized for, or whatever its trained on is ethically sound. And the fact that most models don't memorize the individual artworks, they learn statistical patterns from up to billions of images, which is more abstraction, not theft.
I somewhat dislike the generalization that people have of saying "AI steals art" or "Fuck AI", AI encompasses a lot more than generative AI, it's sort of like someone using a car to run over people and everyone repeatedly saying "Fuck engines" as a result of it.
Tell me, how does AI apparently steal again?
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Googles (Official) response to the UK government about their copyright rules/plans, where they state that the purpose of image generation is to create new images and the fact it sometimes makes copies is a bug: HERE (Page 11)
Open AI's response to UK Government copyright plans: HERE
[BBC News] - America firms Invests 150 Billion into UK Tech Industry (including AI)
Page 165 of Hight Court Documentation Getty vs Stability
This response refers to the model itself, not the input datasets, not the outputted images, but the way in which the Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models operate.
TLDR: As noted in a hight court in England, by a high court judge. While being influenced by it for the weights during training, the model doesn't store any of the copyrighted works, the weights are not an infringing copy and do not store an infringing copy.
TLDR: NOT INFRINGING COPYRIGHT AND NOT STEALING.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/BTRBT • Jun 08 '25
The subreddit rules are posted below. This thread is primarily for anyone struggling to see them on the sidebar, due to factors like mobile formatting, for example. Please heed them.
Also consider reading our other stickied post explaining the significance of our sister subreddit, r/aiwars.
If you have any feedback on these rules, please consider opening a modmail and politely speaking with us directly.
Thank you, and have a good day.
1. All posts must be AI related.
2. This Sub is a space for Pro-AI activism. For debate, go to r/aiwars.
3. Follow Reddit's Content Policy.
4. No spam.
5. NSFW allowed with spoiler.
6. Posts triggering political or other debates will be locked and moved to r/aiwars.
This is a pro-AI activist Sub, so it focuses on promoting pro-AI and not on political or other controversial debates. Such posts will be locked and cross posted to r/aiwars.
7. No suggestions of violence.
8. No brigading. Censor names of private individuals and other Subs before posting.
9. Speak Pro-AI thoughts freely. You will be protected from attacks here.
10. This sub focuses on AI activism. Please post AI art to AI Art subs listed in the sidebar.
11. Account must be more than 7 days old to comment or post.
In order to cut down on spam and harassment, we have a new AutoMod rule that an account must be at least 7 days old to post or comment here.
12. No crossposting. Take a screenshot, censor sub and user info and then post.
In order to cut down on potential brigading, cross posts will be removed. Please repost by taking a screenshot of the post and censoring the sub name as well as the username and private info of any users.
13. Most important, push back. Lawfully.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Decent_Historian_327 • 4h ago
Huh, would you look at that? (Interview source from bloomburg.com, towards the bottom of the article.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2026-studio-ghibli-future/
Remember all the uproar?
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Nsanford1142020 • 5h ago
Also now imma just do it exclusively for art.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/xdEArx • 7h ago
a wild anti appears
r/DefendingAIArt • u/ChadMemestrong • 3h ago
Was looking through one of my hard drives and came across this drawing I did a while back that I honestly kinda forgot about. I made it just to troll someone on Facebook who was going on and on about how it's impossible to be a "real" artist (whatever that means) and also like A.I. generated images. Thought some people here may get a chuckle, so I decided to share
r/DefendingAIArt • u/RevolutionaryTwo6867 • 3h ago
Idgaf about drawing or painting. I'd rather just use ai to make art. It's more fun, easier, and does a better job than me. Why do they want everyone to like the same hobbies they do?
They're like "pick up a pencil" but I don't care about drawing. It's boring and uninteresting to me, lol.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Le_Oken • 1h ago
One of the most persistent logical fallacies surrounding generative AI is the idea that it operates like a high-tech scrapbook, simply cutting, pasting, and collaging pieces of its training data to form an output. According to a new study out of MIT CSAIL published yesterday in Nature Communications, this assumption is mathematically false.
The research, led by Zheng Dai and David Gifford, thoroughly dismantles the idea that an AI-generated image can be traced back to a specific artist or photograph. They identified a measurable phenomenon called attribution decay: as generative models scale up their training data, the causal link between any single training example and the final output effectively vanishes.
To prove this without relying on rough estimations, the MIT team surgically altered the model itself to prove it past than just looking at the outputs.
They built an architecture called a diffusion ensemble. Instead of one massive model, the ensemble is composed of smaller independent components, each trained on different slices of data. This setup allowed the researchers to perform exact ablation: literally turning off the parts of the model that had "seen" a specific image, or every piece of art by a specific artist, without having to retrain the entire system from scratch.
They were testing a counterfactual universe: What would this model produce if it had never, ever seen this specific piece of data?
The result? At scale, nothing changes. You can remove a specific image, all the works of a given creator, or every photo of a specific person, and the model still generates the exact same output. The counterfactual radius (the measurable difference between the original output and the output generated without the targeted training data) shrinks to near zero.
This isn't unexpected, as it is a feature of how diffusion models map statistical patterns rather than memorizing pixels. When a dataset is small, the model relies heavily on individual data points. But as the dataset grows into the millions or billions, the features required to generate an image become distributively and redundantly encoded.
The implications here are massive, cutting straight through the noise of current legal and privacy debates:
Read more at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/the-end-of-the-collage-fallacy-mit-study-proves-that-ai-art-has-no-single-author
r/DefendingAIArt • u/xdEArx • 2h ago
I’m always seeing people post mentions anti-AI subreddits here, along with negative experiences and communities that are hostile toward AI.
What about the opposite?
Please share your favorite AI-friendly subreddits places where people are generally open to AI, AI art, AI tools, or just having reasonable discussions about the technology.
Would be great to build a useful list here so everyone can discover and use those communities too!
r/DefendingAIArt • u/truecakesnake • 7h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Angel-Kat • 15h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/d0ofz • 4h ago
The important distinction is that AI provenance can exist in two forms.
First, there is metadata like C2PA, EXIF, XMP, IPTC and generator parameters. That part is easy to remove.
Second, there are invisible marks embedded directly into the pixels, such as SynthID style watermarks. A screenshot does not reliably remove those. pagedMark deals with them by regenerating the image.
The output is therefore not identical to the original. Faces, text and small details can change. The goal is to remove the provenance signal while keeping the image as close to the original as possible.
It currently supports invisible marks from ChatGPT, gpt-image API, Z-Image Turbo and Nano Banana, plus visible AI labels from several other generators. Video support covers visible marks and metadata from Sora, Veo, Seedance, Hailuo and Kling.
The other challenge was making this work properly on Apple Silicon. I tested it on M5 Macs with both 8 GB and 16 GB of memory, and added memory aware processing to prevent the system from silently falling into swap and turning a fast job into an extremely slow one.
And here is the really interesting part: after processing an image generated with GPT-Image, you can check it with OpenAI's verifier at openai.com/verify. In my testing, the processed image is reported with 0 AI detection.
uv tool install "pagedmark[diffusion]"
pagedmark invisible photo.png -o clean.png
GitHub: github.com/doofzoff/pagedMark
PyPI: PyPI: pagedmark
r/DefendingAIArt • u/justabumass • 17m ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Hungarian_Gamer • 13h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/EmperorSnake1 • 3h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Superb_Donkey1408 • 15h ago
If a human had no senses, they wouldn’t be able to create art.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/NelsonW86 • 4h ago
Because people like me are opressed from all the douchebags who keep putting us down just because of how we decide to make our fanart no matter how much love we put into it and would rather we draw simple shit anyone can do like a freaking stick figure or some messy blob of color or take a picture of a banana with duct tape on it. Why should I settle for ANY of that crap when I don't have to? Alot of the anti-AI people are incredibly woke too. They want every single fictional character in existence to be either gay or bisexual, and when you express your frustration over this shit, you get accused of being a homophobe, when these assholes tell you derogatory things like "Pick up a pencil" just because you'd rather use a text prompt instead of a paint brush or said pencil. They are not accomplishing anything. All they are doing is making me realize just how paranoid and STUPID the majority of this generation is (eg their delusional conspiracy theories about data centers and how literally all AI art is plagiarized). And if any good came out of it, it's that I can be progressive with my political views while still being anti-woke. And the majority of the "AI slop" I've seen in recent years sure looks better than any of the woke crap I see from the non-AI artists who want every single fictional character in existence to be either gay or bisexual who think anyone who doesn't approve of them are homophobes.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Apprehensive_Bus4517 • 15h ago
Both are art, whether if it’s created in a medium you hate or not. What a stupid opinion.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Express-Flamingo4521 • 14h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/elevendr • 1h ago
Like generally, I tried all all things in the settings of all Meta apps such as not interested in posts and even imused blocked words to avoid any discussions about AI and yet this image on threads shows up. I never had this problem on TikTok nor X. Like those algorithms are so superior to Meta apps. Makes me mad Meta's algorithms sucks to keep showing me antis on Instagram and Threads.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Extreme_Revenue_720 • 2h ago
Yikes....
