Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
`Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
`Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
`Travis Manfredi (State Bar No. 281779)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone:
`(415) 500-6800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`Email:
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com
`
`Matthew Butterick (State Bar No. 250953)
`1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
`Los Angeles, CA 90027
`Telephone:
`(323) 968-2632
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`Email:
`mb@buttericklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Individual and Representative
`Plaintiffs Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan,
`Karla Ortiz, and the Proposed Class
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`SARAH ANDERSEN, an individual;
`KELLY MCKERNAN, an individual;
`KARLA ORTIZ, an individual,
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Individual and Representative Plaintiffs,
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`v.
`
`STABILITY AI LTD., a UK corporation;
`STABILITY AI, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; MIDJOURNEY, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; DEVIANTART, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`AI IMAGE GENERATORS ARE 21ST-CENTURY COLLAGE TOOLS THAT
`VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF ARTISTS .................................... 1 
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................... 2 
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT .................................................................... 3 
`
`DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3 
`
`PARTIES ............................................................................................................... 6 
`
`AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS ............................................................... 8 
`
`VII.  CLASS ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................... 9 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`
`Class Definitions........................................................................................ 9 
`
`Numerosity ................................................................................................ 9 
`
`Typicality .................................................................................................. 10 
`
`Commonality & Predominance ................................................................. 10 
`
`Adequacy .................................................................................................. 11 
`
`Other Class Considerations ...................................................................... 12 
`
`VIII.  FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`
`Stability AI................................................................................................ 12 
`
`Midjourney ............................................................................................... 14 
`
`DeviantArt ................................................................................................ 14 
`
`How Stable Diffusion Works: A 21st-Century Collage Tool ..................... 14 
`
`The source of the Stable Diffusion training data: LAION ........................ 22 
`
`DeviantArt’s betrayal of its artist community by embracing generative AI
`images ...................................................................................................... 24 
`G.  Midjourney: the 21st-century collage tool (in)famous for its artistic style 27 
`
`IX. 
`
`XI. 
`
`
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF....................................................................................... 30 
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .............................................................................. 43 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of
`
`themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this Class Action Complaint (the
`
`“Complaint”) against Defendants Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Stability”); Midjourney, Inc. (“Midjourney”); and DeviantArt, Inc. (“DeviantArt”) (all
`
`collectively “Defendants”) for direct and vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 501; violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205 (the
`
`“DMCA”); violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code
`
`section 3344; violation of Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and
`
`declaratory relief.
`I.
`
`AI IMAGE GENERATORS ARE 21ST-CENTURY COLLAGE TOOLS
`THAT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF ARTISTS
`
`1.
`
`Stable Diffusion is a software product—defined below as an AI Image Product—
`
`maintained and sold by Stability.
`2.
`
`Stability downloaded or otherwise acquired copies of billions of copyrighted
`
`images without permission to create Stable Diffusion, including Plaintiffs’. These images are
`
`defined below as “Training Images.”
`3.
`
`By training Stable Diffusion on the Training Images, Stability caused those images
`
`to be stored at and incorporated into Stable Diffusion as compressed copies. Stability made them
`
`without the consent of the artists and without compensating any of those artists.
`4.
`
`When used to produce images from prompts by its users, Stable Diffusion uses the
`
`Training Images to produce seemingly new images through a mathematical software process.
`
`These “new” images are based entirely on the Training Images and are derivative works of the
`
`particular images Stable Diffusion draws from when assembling a given output. Ultimately, it is
`
`merely a complex collage tool.
`5.
`
`These resulting derived images compete in the marketplace with the original
`
`images. Until now, when a purchaser seeks a new image “in the style” of a given artist, they must
`
`pay to commission or license an original image from that artist. Now, those purchasers can use
`
`the artist’s works contained in Stable Diffusion along with the artist’s name to generate new
`
`
`
`1
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`
`works in the artist’s style without compensating the artist at all. As used herein, the phrase “in
`
`the style of,” refers to a work that others would accept as a work created by that artist whose
`
`“style” was called upon, not the general category of work, such as fantasy or impressionism. Only
`
`a very small number of incredibly talented artists are capable of this same feat for a single other
`
`artist (i.e., reproducing art that is convincingly in that artist’s style), let alone for countless other
`
`artists. AI Image Products do so with ease by violating the rights of millions of artists.
`6.
`
`All AI Image Products operate in substantially the same way and store and
`
`incorporate countless copyrighted images as Training Images.
`7.
`
`Defendants, by and through the use of their AI Image Products, benefit
`
`commercially and profit richly from the use of copyrighted images.
`8.
`
`The harm to artists is not hypothetical—works generated by AI Image Products
`
`“in the style” of a particular artist are already sold on the internet, siphoning commissions from
`
`the artists themselves.
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class seek to end this blatant and enormous infringement of their
`
`rights before their professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely by their
`
`hard work.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and as representatives of a Class of
`
`similarly situated individuals and entities. They seek to obtain injunctive relief and recover
`
`damages as a result and consequence of Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
`11.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this judicial district pursuant to Defendants’
`
`unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s intellectual property in violation of the Copyright
`
`Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205 (the
`
`“DMCA”); Unjust Enrichment, and Unfair Competition; California’s right of publicity,
`
`contract, negligence, privacy, and unfair competition statutes and case law.
`12.
`
`A substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this
`
`District.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Midjourney is headquartered in San Francisco. Plaintiff Karla Ortiz
`
`resides in San Francisco, California, a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and
`
`commerce was carried out in this District, and the Defendants are licensed to do business in this
`
`District.
`14.
`
`Each Defendant has transacted business, maintained substantial contacts, and/or
`
`committed illegal acts that harmed Plaintiffs and the Class throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District. Defendants’ conduct has had the intended and foreseeable effect of
`
`causing injury to persons residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District.
`III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`15.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3.2 (c) and (e), assignment of this case to the San
`
`Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is
`
`proper because Plaintiff Karla Ortiz and a large portion of the Class reside in this District. In
`
`addition, a substantial amount of the development of the Stable Diffusion product as well as of
`
`the interstate trade and commerce involved and affected by Defendants’ conduct giving rise to
`
`the claims herein occurred in this Division.
`IV. DEFINITIONS
`
`16.
`
`“AI Image Product” refers to the allegedly AI-based image generation products that
`
`were created, maintained, marketed, sold, and/or distributed by Defendants, namely Stable
`
`Diffusion, the Midjourney Product, DreamStudio, and DreamUp.
`17.
`
`“Artificial Intelligence” or “AI.” AI is a software program that algorithmically
`
`simulates human reasoning or inference, often using statistical or mathematical methods.
`18.
`
`“Derivative Work” as used herein refers to the output of AI Image Products as
`
`well as the AI Image Products themselves—which contain compressed copies of the copyrighted
`
`works they were trained on.
`19.
`
`“Diffusion” is a specific machine-learning application that results in a model that
`
`stores a compressed copy of each item in the training dataset. A more detailed description of
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`
`diffusion appears below. Stable Diffusion is an AI software program that includes a diffusion
`
`model.
`
`20.
`
`“Generative AI” is a subset of machine learning where the program copies training
`
`data and uses it to produce derivative works of that training data. Stable Diffusion is an example
`
`of a generative AI system, because it is trained using copied images, and produces similar images.
`
`Other generative AI systems exist that produce conversational text, software code, and music, in
`
`each case similar to the respective training data.
`21.
`
`“Machine Learning” or “ML” is a type of AI process in which the behavior of the
`
`software program is derived from copying a corpus of material called training data. In this
`
`context, the term “learning” is metaphorical. The process bears very little similarity to human
`
`learning. In this context, it denotes a technique for developing a software program through
`
`massive data input and statistical operations, calculations, and linear algebra, rather than line-by-
`
`line coding using a programming language. Machine-learning programs can find patterns or make
`
`calculations based on datasets or training data. The operator of the algorithm is sometimes called
`
`a “trainer.” Machine learning will be referred to as “AI” unless further distinction is necessary.
`
`Stable Diffusion, the Midjourney Product, DreamStudio, and DreamUp all include both AI
`
`programs and ML programs.
`22.
`
`“Model” denotes the software component of an AI program that is the output of a
`
`machine-learning process. The model is a computer file that contains all the information that has
`
`been extracted from analyzing the training data, including the rules and data structures produced
`
`by the algorithm.
`23.
`
`A “Software Library” is a self-contained software program that is designed to
`
`provide certain functions or services to another software program, such as a desktop or
`
`smartphone application, thereby reducing the development time. When used as a Software
`
`Library, Stable Diffusion provides image-generating services to the other program. Stable
`
`Diffusion has been used as a Software Library within multiple programs, including DreamStudio,
`
`DreamUp, and, on information and belief, the Midjourney Product.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`A “Text Prompt” is a textual description that is used as an interface to certain
`
`generative AI systems to produce output, including the AI Image Products. For instance, a user
`
`of Stable Diffusion can input the text prompt “a dog wearing a baseball cap while eating ice
`
`cream,” and Stable Diffusion will attempt to generate an image that corresponds to that text
`
`prompt. Because randomness is injected into the generative process alongside the text prompt, a
`
`particular text prompt will usually produce a varied set of results. In a generative AI system like
`
`Stable Diffusion, a text prompt is not part of the training data. It is part of the end-user interface
`
`for the tool. Thus, it is more akin to a text query passed to an internet search engine. Just as the
`
`internet search engine looks up the query in its massive database of web pages to show us
`
`matching results, a generative AI system uses a text prompt to generate output based on its
`
`massive database of training data.
`25.
`
`A “Training Image” is an image, or image paired with a descriptive text caption,
`
`that is included among the training data for a machine-learning process. Training images are often
`
`gathered through web scraping. For its training data, Stable Diffusion has taken billions of
`
`Training Images scraped from public websites.
`26.
`
`“Web Scraping” refers to the harvesting, copying, or extracting data from websites
`
`by using automated tools, including bots or web crawlers. Usually, the scope and quantity of data
`
`so “scraped” is massive. Web scraping can be used to harvest any kind of data available on public
`
`websites, especially copyrighted data such as text, images, or software code. These collections of
`
`scraped copyrighted data are used as input for other computer programs, such as search engines
`
`and machine-learning processes. The training data for all AI Image Products are collected via web
`
`scraping. For example, the training data for Stable Diffusion—a database of billions of captioned
`
`images—was collected via web scraping.
`27.
`
`“Work” or “Works” refers to any image that was used to train any version of
`
`Stable Diffusion that was offered directly and/or incorporated into another product by one or
`
`more Defendants during the Class Period.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`V.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Sarah Andersen is a resident of the State of Oregon. Ms. Andersen is a
`
`full-time cartoonist and illustrator and relies on the income therefrom. Her semi-autobiographical
`
`comic strip, Sarah’s Scribbles, finds the humor in living as an introvert. Her graphic
`
`novel FANGS was nominated for an Eisner Award. Ms. Andersen has created and owns a
`copyright interest in over two hundred Works included in the Training Data.1 Ms. Andersen has
`
`complied with the statutory requirements for registration and has applied for and owns copyright
`
`registrations for sixteen collections that include Works used as Training Images. Copies of these
`
`registrations as reflected in the Copyright Office’s records are attached as Exhibits 1 through 16
`
`and are valid and enforceable. Ms. Andersen was, and continues to be, injured during the Class
`
`Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Kelly McKernan is a resident of the State of Tennessee. Mx. McKernan is
`
`a full-time artist and relies on their income therefrom. Kelly creates original watercolor and acryla
`
`gouache paintings for galleries, private commissions, and their online store. Mx. McKernan has
`created and owns a copyright interest in over thirty Works used as Training Images.2 Mx.
`
`McKernan was, and continues to be, injured during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’
`
`unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`30.
`
`Karla Ortiz is a resident of the State of California. Ms. Ortiz is a Puerto Rican,
`
`internationally recognized, award winning full-time artist and relies on the income therefrom. Ms.
`
`Ortiz is renowned for her exceptional design sense, realistic renders, and character-driven
`
`narratives, and has contributed to many big-budget projects in the film, television, and video-
`
`game industries. Ms. Ortiz is also a regular illustrator for major publishing and role playing game
`
`companies. Lastly, Ms. Ortiz is a recognized fine artist, and her deeply personal fine art has been
`
`1 Examples of Ms. Andersen’s Works included in the Training Data can be found here:
`https://haveibeentrained.com/?search_text=sarah%20andersen.
`2 Examples of Mx. McKernan’s Works included in the Training Data can be found here:
`https://haveibeentrained.com/?search_text=kelly%20mckernan and https://laion-
`aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-aesthetic-6pls/images?_search=kelly+mckernan&_sort=rowid.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`
`showcased in notable galleries such as Spoke Art and Hashimoto Contemporary in San Francisco;
`
`Nucleus Gallery, Thinkspace, and Maxwell Alexander Gallery in Los Angeles; and Galerie
`
`Arludik in Paris. Ms. Ortiz has created and owns a copyright interest in at least twelve Works that
`
`were used as Training Images.3 Ms. Ortiz was, and continues to be, injured during the Class
`
`Period as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`B.
`
`Defendants
`31.
`
`Defendant Stability AI Ltd. is a UK corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 88 Notting Hill Gate, London, England, W11 3HP. Stability AI Ltd. is a party to the
`
`unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`32.
`
`Defendant Stability AI, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 88 Notting Hill Gate, London, England, W11 3HP. Stability AI, Inc. is a party
`
`to the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Stability AI, Inc. conducts business in this judicial district.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Stability AI, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant
`
`Stability AI Ltd.
`33.
`
`Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc. jointly created, trained, and maintain Stable
`
`Diffusion, an AI Image Product. Stable Diffusion is used to derive the output images of Stability’s
`
`DreamStudio product. DreamStudio is a web-based app that outputs images in response to text
`
`prompts. DreamStudio requires Stable Diffusion to function; the images are produced by Stable
`
`Diffusion. DreamStudio provides a user interface and access to a trained version of Stable
`
`Diffusion. As noted above, Defendant Stability AI, Inc. is referred collectively with Defendant
`
`Stability AI Ltd. as “Stability.”
`34.
`Defendant Midjourney, Inc.4 is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located at 333 Harrison Street, Apt. 605, San Francisco, California 94105. Midjourney
`
`created, sells, markets, and distributes the Midjourney Product, which is an AI Image Product.
`
`3 Examples of Ms. Ortiz’s Works included in the Training Data can be found here: https://laion-
`aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-aesthetic-6pls/images?_search=karla+ortiz.
`4 To avoid confusion between Midjourney’s eponymous product and the entity itself,
`Midjourney, Inc. is referred to herein as “Midjourney,” and the image-generating product the
`company offers is referred to as the “Midjourney Product.”
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`
`Like Stable Diffusion, the Midjourney Product is a commercial product that produces images in
`
`response to text prompts. On information and belief, Stable Diffusion was used in iterations of the
`
`Midjourney Product. On information and belief, the version of the Midjourney Product currently
`
`available was trained on a subset of the images used to train Stable Diffusion. Midjourney is a
`
`party to the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`35.
`
`Defendant DeviantArt, Inc. (“DeviantArt”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 100 Gansevoort Street, New York, New York 10014.
`
`DeviantArt created, sells, markets, and distributes DreamUp, which is an AI Image Product. Like
`
`Stable Diffusion and the Midjourney Product, DreamUp is a commercial product that relies on
`
`Stable Diffusion to produce images. DreamUp is sold directly on the internet as well as other
`
`sales channels throughout the United States, including in this District. DeviantArt released
`
`DreamUp on November 9, 2022. DeviantArt is a party to the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`VI. AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
`
`36.
`
`The unlawful acts alleged against the Defendants in this class action complaint
`
`were authorized, ordered, or performed by the Defendants’ respective officers, agents,
`
`employees, representatives, or shareholders while actively engaged in the management, direction,
`
`or control of the Defendants’ businesses or affairs.
`37.
`
`The Defendants’ agents operated under the explicit and apparent authority of
`
`their principals.
`38.
`
`Each Defendant, and its subsidiaries, affiliates and agents operated as a single
`
`unified entity.
`39.
`
`Various persons and/or firms not named as Defendants herein may have
`
`participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged herein and may have performed acts and
`
`made statements in furtherance thereof.
`40.
`
`Each acted as the principal, agent, or joint venture of, or for other Defendants with
`
`respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`
`A.
`41.
`
`VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Class Definitions
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
`
`themselves and all others similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
`
`23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Classes:
`
`“Injunctive Relief Class” under Rule 23(b)(2):
`All persons or entities nationalized and/or domiciled in the United
`States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used to
`train any version of an AI Image Product that was offered directly
`and/or incorporated into another product by one or more
`Defendants during the Class Period.
`
`“Damages Class” under Rule 23(b)(3):
`All persons or entities nationalized and/or domiciled in the United
`States that own a copyright interest in any work that was used to
`train any version of an AI Image Product that was offered directly
`and/or incorporated into another product by one or more
`Defendants during the Class Period.
`
`“DeviantArt Damages Subclass” under Rule 23(b)(3):
`All members of the Damages Class who (1) maintained an account
`on DeviantArt; (2) posted copyrighted work on DeviantArt; and
`(3) had that work used to train any version of an AI Image Product.
`
`Any of the Defendants named herein;
`
`Any of the Defendants’ co-conspirators;
`
`These “Class Definitions” specifically exclude the following person or entities:
`a.
`b.
`c.
`d.
`
`Any of Defendants’ parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates;
`
`Any of Defendants’ officers, directors, management, employees,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents;
`
`All governmental entities; and
`
`The judges and chambers staff in this case, as well as any members of their
`
`e.
`f.
`
`immediate families.
`
`Numerosity
`
`Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of Class members, because such
`
`B.
`42.
`
`information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
`
`
`
`9
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`
`there are at least thousands of Class members geographically dispersed throughout the United
`
`States such that joinder of all Class members in the prosecution of this action is impracticable.
`C.
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of their fellow Class members because
`
`Typicality
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same course of conduct from which their injuries result.
`
`Plaintiffs and all Class own copyrights in the Works. Plaintiffs and the Class created or owned
`
`Works that were published on the internet by themselves or others. The Works were used to train
`
`various AI Image Products without permission. Plaintiffs and absent Class members were
`
`damaged by this and other wrongful conduct of Defendants as alleged herein. Damages and the
`
`other relief sought herein are common to all members of the Class.
`D.
`Commonality & Predominance
`44. Numerous questions of law or fact common to the entire Class arise from
`
`Defendants’ conduct—including, but not limited to those identified below:
`i.
`
`Direct Copyright Infringement
` Whether Defendants violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`when they downloaded and stored copies of the Works.
` Whether Defendants violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`when they used copies of the Works to train AI Image Products.
`
`Vicarious Copyright Infringement
` Whether Defendants vicariously violated the copyrights of Plaintiffs and
`
`the Class when third parties used Defendants’ products to create Fakes, as
`
`defined herein.
`
`DMCA Violations
` Whether Defendants violated the DMCA by removing copyright
`
`management information (“CMI”) from the Works and/or causing their
`
`respective AI Image Products to omit CMI from their output images.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Right of Publicity Violations
` Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights of publicity
`
`when they designed their AI Image Products to respond to prompts
`
`requesting output images “in the style” of specific individuals, namely
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class.
`
`Unlawful-Competition
` Whether Defendants’ AI Image Products are being used by Defendants to
`
`engage in Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act and/or California
`
`law.
`
`Injunctive Relief
` Whether this Court should enjoin Defendants from engaging in the
`
`unlawful conduct alleged herein. And what the scope of that injunction
`
`would be.
`vii. Anticipated Defenses
` Whether any affirmative defense excuses Defendants’ conduct, including
`
`but not limited to whether some or all of Defendants’ conduct is allowed
`
`under the Fair Use Doctrine.
`
`45.
`
`These and other questions of law and fact are common to the Class and
`
`predominate over any questions affecting the Class members individually.
`E.
`46.
`
`Adequacy
`
`Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class because
`
`they have experienced the same harms as the Class and have no conflicts with any other members
`
`of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have retained sophisticated and competent counsel (“Class
`
`Counsel”) who are experienced in prosecuting federal and state class actions throughout the
`
`United States and other complex litigation and have extensive experience advising clients and
`
`litigating intellectual property, competition, contract, and privacy matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`
`F.
`47.
`
`Other Class Considerations
`
`Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby
`
`making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.
`48.
`
`This class action is superior to alternatives, if any, for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy. Prosecuting the claims pleaded herein as a class action will
`
`eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation. There will be no material difficulty in the
`
`management of this action as a class action.
`49.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create the
`
`risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of conduct for
`
`Defendants.
`
`VIII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`50.
`
`This class action against Defendants concerns a DeviantArt software product
`
`called DreamUp, a Midjourney software product, and a Stability software product called
`
`DreamStudio, all of which are AI-Image Products and, upon information and belief, built on a
`
`Stability Software Library called Stable Diffusion.
`A. Stability AI
`51.
`
`Stability was founded in London, England in 2020 by Mohammad Emad
`
`Mostaque, a former hedge-fund manager. Mostaque is currently the Chief Executive Officer of
`
`Stability.
`52.
`
`Stability released Stable Diffusion in August 2022. Stable Diffusion is an AI Image
`
`Product that produces images in response to Text Prompts. Stable Diffusion is being updated
`
`rapidly, and has had several major releases: version 1.1, version 1.2, version 1.3, version 1.4, and
`
`the current version is 2.1. Stability is developing an updated version 3.0.
`53.
`Stable Diffusion is software released under a permissive open-source license.5
`
`Under this open-source license, programmers and users can download for free the software and
`
`5 See https://github.com/Stability-AI/stablediffusion/blob/main/LICENSE.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 01/13/23 Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`
`its associated machine-learning models derived from the Training Images and then use the
`
`software according to the terms of the open-source license.
`54.
`
`Stability’s choice to release Stable Diffusion under an open-source license—rather
`
`than under a traditional paid license—has led to rapid adoption of Stable Diffusion, with many
`
`programmers devising and releasing their own software based on Stable Diffusion.
`55.
`
`In August 2022, the same month that Stable Diffusion was released, Stability
`
`released DreamStudio (https://dreamstudio.ai). DreamStudio is a web-server-based AI Image
`
`Product through which users can generate images wit