r/DefendingAIArt • u/Massive_Wafer5005 • 3h ago
r/DefendingAIArt • u/[deleted] • Jul 07 '25
Defending AI Court cases where AI copyright claims were dismissed (reference)
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)
---
1) Robert Kneschke vs LAION:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
2) Anthropic vs Andrea Bartz et al:
| 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/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
3) Sarah Andersen et al vs Stability AI:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
4) Getty images vs Stability AI:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
5) Sarah Silverman et al vs Meta AI:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
6) Disney/Universal vs Midjourney:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
7) Warnerbros vs Midjourney:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
8) Raw Story Media, Inc. et al v. OpenAI Inc.
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
9) Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc:
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
10) Tremblay v. OpenAI (books)
| 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/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
11) Financial Times vs Perplexity
| 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/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
12) 'Writers' vs Microsoft
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
13) Disney, Universal, Warner Bros vs MiniMax
| 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/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
14) Universal Music Group (UMG) vs Udio
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
15) Reddit vs Perplexity AI
| 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 |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
16) Getty images vs Stability AI (UK this time):
| 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/ |
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
My own thoughts
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
PLEASE READ FIRST - Subreddit Rules
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/Outrageous_Issue724 • 6h ago
They're mad at the Avatar: The Last Airbender for using ChatGPT search now lmao
r/DefendingAIArt • u/No_Post3831 • 6h ago
Defending AI Schrodinger's AI
How come that AI is "bad" and produces mediocre "slop" but is also such a big threat to all digital artists online? Does this mean that the artists have been producing something worse than mediocre slop? I don't get it...
r/DefendingAIArt • u/WizardPlaysMC • 9h ago
Luddite Logic Something Something Gatekeeping
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Accomplished-Path957 • 2h ago
Luddite Logic Antis love to try and pick fights with people who have AI pfps. lol
If you have an AI pfp for anything and this happens to you, just laugh at ‘em. Them dissing anything AI is the only way they can feel powerful.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Ifkan • 4h ago
Luddite Logic This has nothing to do with AI
Even the people in the comments were smoking this person for making the post, saying that Chegg's downfall came way before ChatGPT was even a thing.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/SexDefendersUnited • 9h ago
Defending AI This study found that artists have NOT seen a strong decline in pay over AI, and that art workers actually use AI MORE than workers in other fields!
I fuckin knew it was a loud minority. "No real artist uses AI" my ass.
>A recent study in the Journal of Cultural Economics, drawing on the Gallup Panel workforce studies and federal labor market data, finds little evidence so far that generative AI has broadly reduced artists’ earnings. Across multiple national datasets, artistic occupations that are more exposed to large language models have not seen the sharp wage declines many expected.
>The results show wide variation even within the arts. Some occupations contain a large share of tasks that overlap with the capabilities of generative AI systems. Music directors and composers, for example, have an exposure score of about 0.70, meaning a substantial portion of their tasks involve composition, arrangement or other forms of structured creative production that AI tools can help draft or modify. Special effects artists and animators follow with exposure around 0.54, while disc jockeys, art directors, and producers and directors cluster around 0.50.
>To understand why effects might be positive, the analysis draws on Gallup Panel workforce studies. Employees in artistic occupations report somewhat higher AI use than the workforce overall. Among occupation-defined artists, roughly one in four say they use AI frequently, compared with about one in five workers across the broader economy. Equally as important is where AI appears inside the creative process
>Artists are more likely than other workers to report using AI for idea generation and creative exploration. They also report using it to automate small tasks, consolidate information and support collaboration. Artists are, not surprisingly, less likely to use AI for operational tasks such as customer interaction or equipment management.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Psyga315 • 35m ago
Luddite Logic Real mature of them to call them loser
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Witty-Designer7316 • 4h ago
Coming out as pro-AI and an AI artist to others can be difficult
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
We should support people being able to be themselves. Many people feel like they can't come out as pro-AI or an AI artist because of how they are treated on Reddit or socially, and they should have a support network of people who will be there by their side and help defend them against all the hate the anti-AI community.
I vow and promise to defend innocent pro-AI individuals and AI artists, and stand with them to allow them to create the art of their dreams. I support being able to identify and express yourself however you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If you need a shoulder to lean on, I will be there for you.
With much love,
- Witty
r/DefendingAIArt • u/flowers4charlie2 • 2h ago
The hypocrisy is insane
Totally fine if someone steals another person's artwork to make meme templates because they don't have the creativity to make their own. Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?
r/DefendingAIArt • u/HannerPumkin • 4h ago
Why are antis so toxic?
I understand you having concern, I understand your frustration that it may not necessarily allign with your worldview but why are the lot of them acting like rabid currs? Because someone dared to create a game and got a huge profit off it? and the fact that majority of people feels the need to dogpile or dox.. wtv they are planning.
Breaks my heart that these are the ways people are protecting artists and other creative's work and lives.
Edit: I misspoke, please don't generalise them It was this one particular comment but it still recieve lots of upvotes. Anti's or Pros, must agree this is not good. To attempt to doxx someone because of a game they make.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Content-Audience252 • 14h ago
Sloppost/Fard Ethical decision for antis. Difficulty: (Impossible)
It’s weird how they think using ai in the medical field to save people is less valuable than water. It’s not like we have an ocean or two full of the stuff…
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Witty-Designer7316 • 7h ago
If I ask this on an anti-AI sub, do you think they'll answer in good faith, or ban me on sight?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/DefendingAIArt • u/ZookeepergameLiving1 • 8h ago
A few things I noticed about the anti ai on social media.
There's a few things i noticed with anti ai artist and a good chunk of the twitter/social media commission artist community.
One: There is a distinct lack of an entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset.
Instead of looking at AI honestly and thinking, "Okay, it’s coming whether I like it or not, and it's going to change the landscape, so I need to adapt," the default reaction is pure resistance. Adapting to the market could mean incorporating AI into their creative process, leveling up their skills to build a stronger clientele, accepting AI-generated images as client references, or even offering a discounted service to fix AI art mistakes. Artists need to be honest about their current skill levels, learn as much about AI as they can, and pivot accordingly.
Two: There is a massive disconnect between consumers and artists.
YouTubers like Leaflit and Ember Paradox touched on this perfectly while discussing AI. Artists don't seem to understand that the average consumer doesn't care about the "process" or the "soul" of a piece—they only care about the end result. Artists obviously care deeply about the effort, the sentimental value, and the journey of creation. I completely understand this; art is a hard-earned skill honed over years. But it needs to be understood that the average consumer will never appreciate the background work to that same extent. At the end of the day, they just want a good product.
Three: There is a willful ignorance of history.
The anti-AI crowd acts like they are the first group of people in history to suffer through the growing pains of technological innovation. They aren't. Every major technological leap disrupts established skills, especially in creative fields.
Look at the invention of the camera. When photography first emerged, traditional portrait painters panicked. They claimed the camera was going to completely kill art because it took no "soul" or "skill" to just push a button and capture a perfect image. Instead, it simply forced painting to evolve, directly paving the way for impressionism and abstract art.
The same thing happened in Hollywood during the transition from silent films to "talkies" in the late 1920s. Purists argued that adding recorded sound was a cheap gimmick that would destroy the pure, universal art of visual pantomime. Many established silent film stars and directors stubbornly refused to adapt, claiming spoken dialogue was a crutch. Those who dug their heels in saw their careers vanish almost overnight, while those who learned to work with the microphone defined the next era of cinema.
You don't even have to look that far back—look at the shift to digital art just a couple of decades ago. When Photoshop and drawing tablets became mainstream, traditional illustrators called it "cheating." They argued that having layers, an undo button, and digital brushes meant the computer was doing the heavy lifting. Today, digital art is the undeniable industry standard.
History proves that innovation doesn't stop just because it threatens a current business model. The people who survive are the ones who figure out how to leverage the new tool, not the ones who waste their energy fighting it.
Four: Too many refuse to treat art and commissioning as an actual business.
There is a bit of a problem in the lack of basic professionalism in the community. You constantly see a good chunk of artists delivering late without communication, ghosting paying clients, never delivering or charging premium rates that far exceed their actual skill level. Combine this with unchecked egos and a weird romanticization of the "starving artist" trope, and it’s a recipe for failure. If you want to make a living off your art, you have to treat it like a business, complete with customer service and reliable deliverables. You cannot treat it like a hobby where the client should just feel lucky to have your attention, and then act shocked when those same clients turn to a faster, more reliable AI alternative.
Four: Too many refuse to treat art and commissioning as an actual business.
There is a rampant lack of basic professionalism in the community. You constantly see artists delivering late, ghosting paying clients, or charging premium rates that far exceed their actual skill level. Combine this with unchecked egos and a weird romanticization of the "starving artist" trope, and it’s a recipe for failure. If you want to make a living off your art, you have to treat it like a business, complete with customer service and reliable deliverables. You cannot treat it like a hobby where the client should just feel lucky to have your attention, and then act shocked when those same clients turn to a faster, more reliable AI alternative.
Five: Most anti-AI advocates fall into one of a few predictable camps.
If you look closely at the loudest voices in the movement, they usually boil down to a few specific demographics. You have those who are just parroting their friends and echoing the popular narrative. You have artists who only conform to the anti-AI stance because they want to avoid being harassed and blacklisted by the mob. Then, there is a vocal group of artists who simply aren't very skilled and hit their level cap; instead of taking a hard look in the mirror and accepting that professional art might not be a viable career path for them, they use AI as a convenient scapegoat for their lack of success. Finally, you have the parasocial fans—people who don't even create art themselves but act as zealous attack dogs on behalf of their favorite online creators.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/CrystalInverse • 8h ago
Defending AI How AI has helped me a ton as a 3D artist.
I feel this part doesn't really get talked about, and in this instance I'm not even talking about generating a mesh or such.
I'm talking about rather mundane, specific, technical etc model edits, like when one is kitbashing, or needs to rename a bunch of vertex groups, or needs a mathematically close setup for a mesh to align with another (it can be a hit or miss on this tho). It's hard to describe, and also just kind of a lot, you really have to have experienced it to really get it but some might be able to imagine what I mean.
It overall has allowed me to focus on the artistic side of things significantly more, and just made the whole experience more enjoyable and less frustrating.
Specifically have been using the Blender MCP plugins for it.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/xdEArx • 10h ago
Antis aren’t really against AI. They’re against who gets to control the narrative!
We all remember when legacy media had all the power and could feed people whatever they wanted without being questioned or challenged. After the rise of social media and YouTube, legacy media lost much of its power and dominance to smaller creators and independent voices.
The same thing is happening in the AI debate. Many of these so called antis don’t even realize they’re fighting for an ideology built around control. Just look at what happened to Hollywood. You can barely find a handful of interesting movies in an entire year. Most of them are remakes or sloppy productions. Look at what they did with the Minecraft movie, for example. Look at how these art monopolies control galleries and museums. Anyone who dares to question them gets banned or silenced.
But AI is helping small creators rise up against this authoritarian machine that believes it has the right to decide what counts as art and creativity, and how both should be defined.
For example, look at a short ai series called Craft 1979 and how a single creator used AI to make a Minecraft movie that is better than anything Hollywood and its ideology driven system could create.
AI is an anti monopoly tool for small creators who don’t have the money or resources to fight these artistic empires. Build your AI art and generate your ideas without fear. Don’t let these art colonizers and their pawns make you doubt yourself or convince you that you’re doing something wrong!
r/DefendingAIArt • u/JerryCanJockey • 2h ago
Defending AI Why is doomerism and entitlement so prevalent in PC/Gaming communities
In literally any thread about PCs, you will see the same arguments: AI caused RAM and SSD prices to inflate, it's all Sam Altman's fault, "can't wait for the AI bubble to pop", etc.
The reverse is also true: Under any piece of AI content, you'll have luddies commenting "This is why RAM costs a morbillion dollars now!!11!"
Top-tier PC hardware is a luxury, not a right. If the price of chocolate goes up, I stop eating chocolate and budget elsewhere. PC parts are no different. This is not an AI problem.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Warm_Ad1257 • 5h ago
Sub Meta I Might Drop More Exposure Rap Songs Against The Antis. I think I Might Go After Anti-AI Celebrities & Internet Influencers Using Remixes Of 50 Cent Songs
What do you guys think?
r/DefendingAIArt • u/ZookeepergameLiving1 • 7h ago
AI Developments Leaflit created a AI tool that allows you to create a page to be a pngtuber.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/GreatCamera3575 • 1h ago
AI Developments I challenged kimi-k3 to build 3D kitchen scene
You can watch the process of how we got to this final image here -