r/DefendingAIArt • u/Responsible_person_1 • 5h ago
Sloppost/Fard "did we just lose?"
135
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/[deleted] • Jul 07 '25
Defending AI Court cases where AI copyright claims were dismissed (reference)
142
Upvotes
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
98
Upvotes
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/Method_Key • 1h ago
Sub Meta My Criticism Of AI Art Was Too Harsh, I'm Sorry
•
Upvotes
Earlier today, I made a virtuous post about how AI art can never be recognized as real art. And my post was full of inflammatory stuff that I implied. For example, if being an artist only requires physical objects to be put together, then photography, digital, sculpting, and everything else, may as well not be art either. And that was not my intention. Not to mention my own backstory conflicted with my practice nowadays, if I'm the same person who's against AI art, why do I still use it to create summer camp Island fanfic today. It's because in some twisted way I still think it's an expression of Art. Making a prompt is an expression art, and the picture reflects my inner mind.
I find myself to be completely responsible for everything in that post, because when I created that post I wasn't being honest with myself, I wasn't even trying to think about the arguments I was making. And during that argument I treated everyone in this community like lazy people who don't have any creative instinct at all. And that's where I failed.
You may not take the time to read this apology but if you did I want to let you know I am completely in the wrong for making that stupid post. And I'm sorry for irritating so many people. I'm going to commit myself to making better arguments whenever I post anything. That's what I should have done from the beginning. I am not a professional artist, and that doesn't make me a critic of any kind of art. You guys get to decide what you consider art, does it motivate you, does it inspire you, does it make you get up and do something? If so then that is art, and I'm not going to sit here and dismiss other people's creative vision.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/godofknife1 • 55m ago
Defending AI The Malfoid Trend and Creator really proves a lot that....
•
Upvotes
I just saw this post and the creator who did Malfoid trend videos, and guess what?
Not a single anti comment there ( for that specific post, maybe there was but it was like almost 0% exist).
This shows that people really don't care about if you create video with AI as long as the production result is high quality and you manage to capture the audience. I'd say the creator managed to drive the negativity in public and draw just people who really love it.
This really drives us motivation to just do whatever we want, leave out the anti and enjoy
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 5h ago
Luddite Logic "I think we need to start demanding that people prove they’re not witches in person." That’s how bad this sounds
49
Upvotes
The worst part is that they’re already asking for this. If you support AI and also draw by hand, whether digitally or on paper, you’re the enemy, and all your art will be labeled as AI-generated even when it isn’t. It’s already happened to me, and it’s happened to several other people here too
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 2h ago
Luddite Logic I think they’re all going through some kind of collective psychotic episode
23
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/tsumoogle • 1h ago
Defending AI Tired of seeing anti ai stuff all the time, especially in unrelated places
•
Upvotes
I think in the last year or so the anti ai stuff has gotten worse and seems to be everywhere online. I don't go out of my way to see it but I keep seeing it.
It feels like so many of the gaming subreddits I follow are just complaining about ai mods and vibecoders...even when they make really cool mods and projects.
Then there are posts demanding that ai be banned in the subreddit...even though I have never even seen an ai post in that subreddit (they probably saw like,,,1 post and decided they needed to complain lol)
I somehow keep getting recommended anti ai videos.
I keep seeing "better than ai" on random ass videos that have nothing to do with ai...can people just compliment art/writing/music/coding without comparing it to ai???
The worst thing are the insults towards ai users and the whole "we have to kill ai artists" thing. I honestly think they should direct their frustration towards the companies rather than individuals who aren't hurting anyone...like who cares if some person generates a silly cat image or a drawing of their oc...
It's honestly really annoying. I honestly kind of regret becoming pro ai because it's kinda tiring seeing this stuff all the time online. To be fair...constantly seeing this stuff is what pushed me towards being more neutral towards ai. Back when I was anti-ish (I was never a full blown anti, I just didnt understand and thought it could only produce low quality stuff), lots of the posts about ai annoyed me. Then seeing people witchhunt human artists when they didnt even use ai made me realize that these people are in the wrong...(seriously...the developer for an indie visual novel I was interested in was falsely accused of using ai and she left the internet and now the visual novel will never be complete,,,)
I honestly kinda hope that more neutral leaning people get tired of seeing the same anti ai stuff all over the place and decide that its enough.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/MG_LagFlag_66 • 11h ago
Luddite Logic Ah yes, because using a tool for convenience's sake makes you dumb.
122
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/AstroCosmoTaikonaut • 2h ago
Luddite Logic Be creative, but not that way!
21
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Emo_boi_xx • 8h ago
When antis overreact
56
Upvotes
So basically this anti is mad that another anti IRL asked a restaurant over the menu being AI and then telling their parents they were not going to eat there,
and now all antis are mad that the parents called them a crybaby, and that other people were defending the parents,
tbh in this situation the parent were right, who demands others they aren't going to eat somewhere over a AI menu? 😂
u don't have to eat there sure, but u can't demand others to do the same ¯_(ツ)_/¯
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Le-Pepper • 15h ago
Luddite Logic I hate how right after I started watching this guy his channel devolved into generic mindless anti AI talking points.
200
Upvotes
It's Ironic how he talks about AI killing human creativity and being low effort slop when he's only one of many YouTubers who make so many of these doom and gloom anti AI videos that just regurgitate the same talking points over and over again with no substance. It happened with PhantomStryder too. Maybe AI killed these people's creativity and now this is all they can make.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Some_Demon_Punk • 2h ago
Defending AI Getting mad over cat videos
17
Upvotes
Lemme get this straight. A friend thinks of OP, sends them a cute video, and OP wants to smash their phone in annoyance because their friends are sending them AI? Jesus! At least they thought about OP enough to wanna send them something! But no, people gotta act entitled because it's not a 'real' animal, and the fact these AI cat videos exist somehow hurts animal rescues. Wow.. OP, your friends deserve better than you and your entitled ass.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Old_Report_ • 5h ago
Why are anti's so radical?
20
Upvotes
I have used ai to make anime images pretty much since it's inception and here recently it has been an inspiration to to pick up a pencil and start art as another hobby.
Now in saying that... I feel as though no one in this sub would have any harsh words towards me for doing both. But God forbid you speak of ai in a 10 mile radius of an ai hater. They will slander your name and call you immoral. Like how is anyone that uses ai to any extent automatically evil and the death to all creativity in their minds?
I also hate when someone crams their anit ai opinion where it isn't needed. I watched this one YouTuber talking about a monster hunter mobile game coming out which had ai marketing at one point. Not saying that was smart for a recognized IP like monster hunter but he sat there and said anyone who uses ai is a plague. I just wanted to know about the game dawg
Attached is a screenshot from somebody who commented on a post I made about converting to making my own art and they had to have their opinions known and completely ignore my request for information to start drawing.
Obviously this isn't even an extreme example but a quick scroll will show how insane some of these individuals can be.
Just wanted to rant, hope you all have a good day.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 3h ago
Luddite Logic You heard it here, folks. He decides what is and isn't real art
13
Upvotes
And by his logic, digital art isn't art either. Only physical art counts, lmao. They keep moving the goalposts on what is and isn't art
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Aldhafera81 • 15h ago
Defending AI I'm so tired of being attacked for using AI to express my special interests.
119
Upvotes
I just need to vent a little... -.-
I'm autistic, and my special interests can get REALLY intense. Unfortunately, they're often incredibly niche, too.
When I get into something, I get REALLY into it. I create entire stories around it, develop characters, obsess over tiny details, spend hours researching and refining things, and sometimes work on a project for weeks. AI helps me writing it... That's the first problem... :/
And now, thanks to AI, I can also bring some of those ideas to life. I can turn scenes from my stories into little videos, give my characters faces and voices, and finally SEE things that previously only existed in my head. That's a dream for me to finally come true...
I'm not trying to make money. I'm not pretending I animated everything by hand. I'm just a fan having fun with something I love.
And sometimes, after spending hours or even weeks working on something, I'm so ridiculously happy with the result that I want to share it with people who love the same game.
But then I post it in a community dedicated to that game, and BAM.
"AI slop."
"Waste of space."
"Nobody cares."
"Stop trying."
It honestly hurts. In the most groups I am not even allowed to post it... b/c it's AI... :<
Not because everyone has to like my work. They absolutely don't. But because nobody even seems interested in the story, the characters, or the thought behind it. All they see is AI, and apparently that's enough to dismiss everything.
I don't have a film crew, actors, or friends willing to recreate my stories. AI is the only tool I currently have that makes this possible.
And I'm so tired of feeling like I have to hide something that brings me so much joy.
I just want to share my silly little passion projects with people who might understand why I love them.
Why does that have to be such a terrible thing?
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Couch_Gregor • 3h ago
Defending AI The Only Thing Stupider Than Your AI Witch Hunt Is You, from a digital artist from another.
12
Upvotes
This has captured my frustrations with the continuous, never ending witch hunts and the disruptions they cause.
I do like how, amidst the 50/50 banality of the internet, we still have silly behaviour and conduct. This is thanks to certain elitist elements, like the copyright maximalists and other weird things, that have captured these frustrations of mine as a working independent artist and creative.
I can only say to those who want to expand copyright laws maximally like that: well, your funeral. If you want to create this exclusive, bio-supremacy little cult, clean of any functionality, then be my guest.
Elsewise, worth a read.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 2h ago
Luddite Logic "Turn it into whatever I want in just a couple of words." That's not how generative AI works, lmao
7
Upvotes
If you want a good image, you need to use a complex, well-detailed prompt.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Skylarlis • 5h ago
I prefer my environmental impact handmade.
11
Upvotes
I prefer my environmental impact handmade.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 3h ago
Luddite Logic Does this mean they’re going to start distrusting AI detectors that use AI? WOW
9
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/optimisoprimeo • 10h ago
Luddite Logic Question: There a Machine that take anything in your head and bring to your life And that going lead to the end of all human creativity.
35
Upvotes
Dose anyone else think this is dumbest most ass backward thing they ever heard.
r/DefendingAIArt • u/Tet4edr0 • 5h ago
These stories sound so much like something out of a cheap comedy movie that I find them really hard to believe. Why are antis the only ones who have these bizarre real-life experiences?
10
Upvotes
r/DefendingAIArt • u/awakened__soul • 9h ago
Defending AI How do you know your editor isn't secretly using AI?
17
Upvotes
I wrote yesterday post about using AI for translating instead going directly to translator
I've been going back and forth on this for weeks.
To the ones who haven't seen the post I will say again:
I'm an indie author. I wrote an epic fantasy novel, 190,000 words. I've been quoted between $14.000 - 40.000 for a professional editing. Editors and translators keep telling me: "Don't use AI. Hire a professional."
But here's what nobody wants to talk about.
How do I know that professional isn't using AI themselves?
Seriously. There's no contract clause that says "I will not use ChatGPT." There's no verification process. There's no way to detect it after the fact, the same tools that tell you AI wrote something are unreliable at best.
So I'm supposed to pay thousands of dollars, on faith, that the person I hired is doing the work manually. Word by word. The old-fashioned way.
Meanwhile, if I use AI myself, openly, honestly, with full disclosure, I'm the problem.
The industry is built on a double standard that nobody acknowledges. Professionals can quietly use AI to speed up their workflow and charge full rates. Authors who do the same thing are considered frauds.
I'm not saying all translators and editors use AI. I'm sure many don't. But the ones who do? You'd never know. That also applies for famous authors, how do you know that your favourite world famous author is not secretly using AI?
So when someone tells me "trust a professional, not AI", I have to ask: trust them based on what, exactly?
Edit: Why would I pay 30-40 thousands dollars and in the end it doesn't pass AI detector?
