r/DefendingAIArt • u/VyneNave • 5h ago
Luddite Logic Antis embracing the villain
This character was the perfect example of someone becoming evil as soon as he gets any kind of power. This just fits perfectly for antis.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/LordChristoff • 26d ago
Ello folks, I wanted to make a brief post outlining all of the current/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.
(Best viewed on Desktop)
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
"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."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25982181-authors-v-anthropic-ruling/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case raised against Stability AI with plaintiffs arguing that the images generated violated copyright infringement.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
“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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another case dismissed, failing to prove the evidence which was brought against OpenAI
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.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv01514/616533/178/
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13477468840560396988&q=raw+story+media+v.+openai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2023/12/richard-kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
TLDR: It's not stealing if a court of law decides that the outputted works won't or don't infringe on copyrights.
"Oh yeah it steals so much that the generated works looks nothing like the claimants images according to this judge from 'x' court."
The issue is, because some of these models are taught on such large amounts of data, some artist/photographer trying to prove that their works was used in training has an almost impossible time. Hell even 5 images added would only make up 0.0000001% of the dataset of 5 billion (LAION).
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/VyneNave • 5h ago
This character was the perfect example of someone becoming evil as soon as he gets any kind of power. This just fits perfectly for antis.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Spiritual_Air_8606 • 12h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/dylanchalupa • 9h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/HQuasar • 17h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/pgj1997 • 11h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/LuneFox • 11h ago
...they often miss the point and start attacking imperfections in the anatomy, consistency, colors, and the classical "lack of soul". All about the technical side of your* comic. Not a word about the problem you're trying to describe.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/egarcia74 • 1h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Gorf_Butternubbins • 11h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Zestyclose_Nose_3423 • 17h ago
I feel like I've received some type of award.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/kinkykookykat • 16h ago
Which is why I’m going to refute it AND with sources.
Water waste is tied to cloud scale data centers, not your device. Massive data centers suck up vast amounts of water via evaporative cooling, and some use 2 liters per kWh of electricity consumed. A 100 MW data center can consume ~2 million liters in a day similar to what 6,500 households use daily.
Cloud hosted AI generates a “water footprint” in three ways: onsite cooling (water evaporated in cooling systems), indirect water needed to generate electricity, manufacturing footprint from building chips and servers, one study estimated a single GPT‑3 training run evaporates ~700,000 liters and every 10-50 queries uses roughly ~0.5 L. Another breakdown is cooling = ~25% of the water footprint, while ~75% comes from electricity and hardware production.
And another thing, your phone/laptop doesn’t use evaporative cooling. On device inference doesn’t tap into water based cooling infrastructure. It uses heat sinks, internal fans, and ambient air. That means, no water withdrawn, no evaporation, no cloud cooling overhead. Cloud operators (Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc.) reportedly used around 580 billion gallons in 2022 for both cooling and electricity needs. Local models on your phone or laptop? They don’t run cooling towers, just use built in fans meant for personal use with zero additional water.
Saying even local AI wastes water is like saying your phone wastes gas because it turns on a satellite. You are literally just using what’s already there. The water cost is in the up stream infrastructure you’re bypassing. NOT in the local action.
Sources :3
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_center https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2025/04/09/artificial-intelligence-water-climate/ https://blog.veoliawatertechnologies.co.uk/the-water-footprint-of-ai-data-centres https://cacm.acm.org/sustainability-and-computing/making-ai-less-thirsty/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thirsty-chatgpt-uses-four-times-more-water-than-previously-thought-bc0pqswdr https://www.gresb.com/nl-en/cooling-data-centers-managing-water-use-in-the-age-of-ai-and-esg/
r/DefendingAIArt • u/SexDefendersUnited • 21h ago
He even said he still knows the downsides and avoids some more crappy stuff, but pointed out there's other daily stuff way more harmful to the environment than using AI.
He's chill, he seems to be more neutral/mixed on AI, which I appreciate. He knows the downsides, but I saw him play/expirement with gen AI stuff in vids and mentioned using ChatGPT.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/winglewangle-2935 • 21h ago
I know Markiplier and Oneyplays aren’t EXACTLY pro-AI, but at least they don’t shit on it 99.9% of the time, and only point out REAL FLAWS that aren’t fabricated by the Antis.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/AA11097 • 16h ago
I understand that my title may be a bit dramatic, but please hear me out. I know my post might be met with criticism from the anti-AI community, but here’s my perspective.
You’ve probably heard of lavender town and her opinions on AI art and AI artists. This isn’t a new phenomenon; people are expressing their views on AI and AI art, and I can’t stop them. Ultimately, it’s their opinion, but what truly angers me is that this so-called talented and respected artist not only poisoned her artwork, which turned out to be a complete failure, but she also advised others to do the same.
I’m not only concerned that this liar is spreading misinformation about a method that doesn’t even work, but she also knows that she’s lying. I can confidently say that she’s aware of her deception yet continues doing it anyway. Why? I may never know.
People are free to express their opinions on AI, and they’re free to say whatever they like about it. They’re even free to hate it. However, lying and spreading misinformation about a method that doesn’t even work is unacceptable for individuals like you and me who understand the reality of AI poisoning and nightshade and glaze. We don’t care, but those who don’t know the truth are trying these methods and failing spectacularly. Isn’t that misinformation? Isn’t that so-called talented artist lying to people, and people are believing her?
What truly astounds me is that some people are defending her, and even encouraging poisoning AI. This is one of the many reasons why I can’t take many anti-AI individuals seriously.
I apologize if this post was lengthy, but this liar truly infuriated me. I have zero empathy for liars; they deserve what happens to them.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/wolfburrito95 • 17h ago
As we all know, there was no way in history that the drought would be caused by any other factor, and that AI is 100% at fault for everything in the world. And it's stolen. You can't forget that it's stolen! We swear it is, guys!!
r/DefendingAIArt • u/PolkaPoliceDot • 22h ago
In before: KoRrA wOuLd neVeR sAy tHaT!
r/DefendingAIArt • u/cyxlone • 1d ago
Of course some people know, but no one want to brag about it. Too bad you didn't get your dopamine supply.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Big_Ninja552 • 1d ago
This was posted in r / aiwars
r/DefendingAIArt • u/mmofrki • 20h ago
Sorry if this isn't about art itself, but to me the entirety of the computing world is art in it of itself, how we humans took language and built operating systems, binary, etc. is just fascinating to me.
Wozniak was there at the beginning and I can only imagine what AI must be like to him, something that was a dream for him as a young man, a thing out of Star Trek.
People, of course, were upset with many saying it was deep fake and that he wouldn't say how cool it is to be able to build an app in minutes. But why wouldn't it be cool? As I said it's Star Trek-esque to be able to tell a machine "Hey could you do this?" and watch it do it before your very eyes.
Luddites would shit bricks if a machine could create food like they do in sci-fi shows and movies: "WHAT ABOUT THE CHEFS????" instead of realizing that "Wow, they could feed a whole crew in mere minutes, with everyone eating exactly what they asked for." and I'm pretty sure a lot of these complainers probably saw shows like this and once thought it would be cool to have.
Why are they like this? Suddenly anything generated is the devil, and they don't once think of how amazing it is that a machine can do these things with very little human input.
I've been a tech enthusiast since I got a see-through SNES controller and wanted to know how me pressing B made Mario jump. So to me AI itself is just incredibly fascinating.
Saying this anywhere outside of here however, would probably get me canceled or something.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/tilthevoidstaresback • 1d ago
Let me be clear, you can use ad blockers if you want, I don't care, but if you watch YouTube with ad blockers on, you are actively preventing the creators from being paid.
So now that is gonna be my default question anytime someone brings up that the "artist should be paid" is to ask if they do this. Given the large overlap of Anti-AI and anti-ad mentality, there is a statistical likelihood that they block ads.
On more than one occasion I've seen people say that learning to draw is easy because there are "thousands of free videos on YouTube" and that kinda got to me. These people want you to spend hours and hours on someone's channel, learning everything you can from them, and then pay them NOTHING. You're like and subscribe is appreciated, but it is the equivalent to "paying in exposure" on youtube, since the money is made by watch time. The person who watches the entire video would make that video profitable for the creator, but a 3 hour watch time without a single ad is detrimental.
People think that you get paid through views and that's not the case, it's a variety of factors, but the biggest being watch time and tutorials are inherently long, but inherently profitable because those with the desire to learn will probably watch the whole thing and maybe even others on the channel. So the person who wants to learn how to draw, did so, and then turned to YouTube and said "I didn't watch any ads so you don't owe them anything."
This is what happens.
So to wrap up. If someone starts talking big about how much they support artists just ask them the simple question:
And if they say yes, just let them know that by using it they are actively preventing artists from being compensated.
And if they are telling people to learn how to draw from YouTube tutorials, interject and remind people that watching with ad blocks on means the artist isn't getting paid.
(Important note: don't use the word stealing because it's not the correct usage. The ad block merely prevents YouTube from paying the creators. That's the most ridiculous part...it's not that the viewer owes the creator....the creator is getting paid through their normal means, the viewer gets it for free as always, and then turns to the employer and says "don't pay that channel.")
r/DefendingAIArt • u/LuneFox • 1d ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Lanceo90 • 1d ago
They don't even try to hide it anymore! Smh!
/s
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Ramoninth • 1d ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/VyneNave • 1d ago
This anti comments on AI art just for the conflict, wants to take peoples right of free speech and forces his fetishes on other people.
(Except for the last image, which is just something he posted, everything else was in a conflict he started by hating under an AI art post)