Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Through the ADventures in Law Blog, BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team provides updates and analysis on legal issues and trends in the advertising and marketing industry.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ADventures in Law Content</a> site for more and to subscribe!

ADventures in Law

The Antitrust Advocate blog provides insights and commentary surrounding complex antitrust litigation and trade regulation. It’s presented by members of BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Competition Team.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://www.antitrustadvocate.com/">Antitrust Advocate</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Antitrust Advocate

BakerHostetler’s Blockchain Monitor is a weekly blog curated and written by members of our Web3 and Digital Assets team. Published every Monday, the blog is dedicated to providing our clients, friends and industry contacts with a concise weekly update of key developments in the fast-paced blockchain industry. By subscribing below you will receive the blog in your email inbox every Monday afternoon.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://www.theblockchainmonitor.com/">Blockchain Monitor</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Blockchain Monitor

Commentary addressing risks and opportunities through the life cycle of data, technology, advertising and innovation.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://www.bakerdatacounsel.com/">Data Counsel</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Data Counsel

The Discovery Advocate blog is presented by members of BakerHostetler’s E-Discovery Advocacy and Management Team (EDAM).  Today’s modern discovery practice requires a practical approach backed by specialized expertise; Discovery Advocate examines the developments and trends that impact today’s litigants in the trenches of litigation and beyond.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.discoveryadvocate.com/"><strong>Discovery Advocate</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Discovery Advocate

The Employment Law Spotlight blog is written by attorneys of our national Labor and Employment Group, with an eye toward helping employers avoid litigation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/"><strong>Employment Law Spotlight</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Employment Law Spotlight

BakerHostetler is at the forefront of national law firms providing clients involved in every facet of healthcare delivery across the country with comprehensive legal counsel of remarkable responsiveness, creativity, quality and value.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.healthlawupdate.com/"><strong>Health Law Update</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Health Law Update

In today’s global economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, domain names and other intellectual property (IP) are among the most valuable assets of market leaders and rising businesses.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/"><strong>IP Intelligence Report</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

IP Intelligence Report

Updates from Capitol Hill.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ohioclock.com/"><strong>Ohio Clock</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Ohio Clock

The Bargaining Table blog is written by attorneys of BakerHostetler’s Labor Relations team, with an eye toward helping employers manage their unionized workforces.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/"><strong>Bargaining Table</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

The Bargaining Table

Home | BakerHostetler

2025 DSIR Report Deeper Dive

2026 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

32nd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

33rd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

Join us for AD Nauseam, an AdLaw podcast series featuring Amy Mudge and Daniel Kaufman from our Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team. Together, they have decades of advertising experience and share their insights on trending legal issues in the advertising space, with an emphasis on the FTC and NAD developments.

AD Nauseam

The use of noncompetes is now shifting across the country. Many states are limiting the use of noncompetes. Several states have enacted or are considering prohibitions on noncompetes. Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission is engaging in a rulemaking that could ban noncompete agreements between employers and employees. What does all of this mean for your business? Are there alternatives to noncompetes that can protect your business?

To help bring all this into focus, we’ve created a three-part series called “Alternatives to Noncompetes.”

Alternatives to Noncompetes

BakerHostetler Blockchain University

BakerHosts

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2024

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2025

Celebrating Black Voices at BakerHostetler

Since the recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, companies have been impacted nationwide and have several new legal angles to consider as it relates to their employees and their businesses. With that in mind, we’ve created a new podcast series, Dobbs on Demand, designed to help you navigate this new and evolving landscape.

Dobbs on Demand

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2022

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2023

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2024

Estate and Tax Planning for Globally Mobile Clients

MDLephant: What's Big in MDL Litigation?

Promoting the Progress of Science

Regulatory Horizons

Rev Up!

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs

The Cloakroom podcast series brings you inside Capitol Hill with insightful interviews and discussions with leading lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. Hosted by former Congressman Peter Roskam, who leads BakerHostetler’s Federal Policy team, you’ll hear firsthand about the latest policy debates on taxes, healthcare, energy, financial services and more.
<p class="pb-4 font-bold"><strong>Subscribe to The Cloakroom</strong></p>
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam-bakerhosts/id1759425935" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apple Podcast</a> | <a href="https://www.amazon.com/music/player/podcasts/bdb139af-518d-469a-998b-ea9b49fafd93/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam---bakerhosts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Music</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7LfpZdBC0OA2jyVjgVXNFF?si=de8f473382704494" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spotify</a>

The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam

The Data Economy and You

The Data Stream

The Emerging New Era for Noncompetes and Trade Secrets

The Now and Next in International Trade

The State Tax Show

Wait, what?

Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions

Prompt visitors to take action with a button-style link.

core/button

Button


<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/">Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions</a></div>


core/buttons

<div class="wp-block-buttons"><div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/">Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions</a></div></div>

core/heading

<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-summary"><strong>Summary</strong></h2>

Visual artists filed this putative class action, alleging direct and induced copyright infringement, DMCA violations, false endorsement and trade dress claims based on the creation and functionality of Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion and DreamStudio, Midjourney Inc.’s eponymous generative AI tool, and DeviantArt’s DreamUp.

core/paragraph

<p>Visual artists filed this putative class action, alleging direct and induced copyright infringement, DMCA violations, false endorsement and trade dress claims based on the creation and functionality of Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion and DreamStudio, Midjourney Inc.’s eponymous generative AI tool, and DeviantArt’s DreamUp.</p>

<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-what-we-re-watching"><strong>What We’re Watching</strong></h2>

Close of fact discovery is scheduled for March 13, 2026. 

<p>Close of fact discovery is scheduled for March 13, 2026. </p>

<strong>Case Background</strong>

<strong>Caption: </strong><em>Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.</em>, 3:23-cv-00201

Start with the basic building block of all narrative.

In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire to call to mind, there lived not long since one of those gentlemen that keep a lance in the lance-rack, an old buckler, a lean hack, and a greyhound for coursing.

Paragraph

paragraph

Paragraph that resizes to fit its container.

stretchy-paragraph

Stretchy Paragraph

<p><strong>Caption: </strong><em>Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.</em>, 3:23-cv-00201</p>

<strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California

<p><strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California</p>

<strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge William H. Orrick

<p><strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge William H. Orrick</p>

Plaintiffs – Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye and Adam Ellis, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, variously represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Matthew Butterick.

<p>Plaintiffs – Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye and Adam Ellis, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, variously represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Matthew Butterick.</p>

Stability AI – Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI Ltd., represented by Morrison &amp; Forester LLP and Lex Lumina PLLC (formerly represented by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &amp; Jacobson LLP)

<p>Stability AI – Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI Ltd., represented by Morrison &amp; Forester LLP and Lex Lumina PLLC (formerly represented by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &amp; Jacobson LLP)</p>

Midjourney – Midjourney Inc., represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen &amp; Hamilton LLP (formerly represented by Cooley LLP)

<p>Midjourney – Midjourney Inc., represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen &amp; Hamilton LLP (formerly represented by Cooley LLP)</p>

DeviantArt – DeviantArt, Inc., represented by Latham &amp; Watkins LLP

<p>DeviantArt – DeviantArt, Inc., represented by Latham &amp; Watkins LLP </p>

Runway AI – Runway AI, Inc. represented by Keker, Van Nest &amp; Peters LLP

<p>Runway AI – Runway AI, Inc. represented by Keker, Van Nest &amp; Peters LLP</p>

contentpilot/accordion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Case Background</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><strong>Caption: </strong><em>Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.</em>, 3:23-cv-00201</p><p><strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California</p><p><strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge William H. Orrick</p><p><strong>Parties:</strong></p><p>Plaintiffs – Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye and Adam Ellis, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, variously represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Matthew Butterick.</p><p>Stability AI – Stability AI, Inc. and Stability AI Ltd., represented by Morrison &amp; Forester LLP and Lex Lumina PLLC (formerly represented by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &amp; Jacobson LLP)</p><p>Midjourney – Midjourney Inc., represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen &amp; Hamilton LLP (formerly represented by Cooley LLP)</p><p>DeviantArt – DeviantArt, Inc., represented by Latham &amp; Watkins LLP </p><p>Runway AI – Runway AI, Inc. represented by Keker, Van Nest &amp; Peters LLP</p></div></details>

<strong>Status Updates</strong>

core/group

Group

group

group-row

group-stack

Stack

group-grid

Grid

Apr. 24, 2025 – Parties filed joint status report  

Organize content within collapsable accordion items.

Accordion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Apr. 24, 2025 – Parties filed joint status report  </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Apr. 24, 2025 – Parties filed joint status report  </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Parties filed the joint status report in advance of the Discovery Status Conference scheduled for April 29, 2025. Parties jointly proposed a revised case schedule for discovery, and defendants unilaterally asked for interim discovery deadlines “[t]o avoid unnecessary and burdensome scrambling near the close of fact discovery.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details>

Dec. 6, 2024 – Stability AI answered complaint

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Dec. 6, 2024 – Stability AI answered complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Dec. 6, 2024 – Stability AI answered complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Stability AI answered the second amended class action complaint [238], generally denying the allegations that Stability AI was liable for direct or induced copyright infringement or DMCA §1202(b) violations. Stability AI denied that it directly infringed works contained within LAOIN-5B by training Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0. Stability AI denied that it induced copyright infringement by distributing Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 for free. O the basis that the DMCA violation claim was dismissed, Stability AI denied Count 3. Stability AI also raised a number of affirmative defenses, including (among others) fair use, express or implied license, estoppel, merger, <em>scenes a faire</em>, public domain and de minimis copying.</p></div></details>

Oct. 31, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed second amended class action complaint

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Oct. 31, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed second amended class action complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">















</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Oct. 31, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed second amended class action complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint, asserting various causes of action against Stability AI, Midjourney, Runway AI, and DeviantArt. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants sold “copyright infringement as a service” through their various AI image generation products, pointing out that infringement occurred “at every phase” of defendants’ product development: “the gathering and copying of the dataset, the training and deployment of the model, and the output images.”</p><p>With respect to Stability AI, plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action:</p><ol class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in the LAION-5B dataset, by downloading copies of such works from the URLs in the dataset, using copies of such works to train its AI models (including Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0), and distributing those allegedly infringing AI models to the public;</li><li>Induced copyright infringement, by materially contributing to downstream copyright infringement through distributing the allegedly infringing Stable Diffusion 2.0 and Stable Diffusion XL 1.0 AI models for free under the MIT license; and</li><li>Violations of DMCA § 1202, by (a) falsely asserting a copyright in its allegedly infringing AI models by distributing them under the MIT license in violation of § 1202(a) and (b) knowingly removing or altering CMI from copies of plaintiffs’ works when training its AI models, which led to its AI models generating outputs based on plaintiffs’ images with CMI removed or altered, in violation of § 1202(b).</li></ol><p>With respect to Midjourney, plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action:</p><ol class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement of plaintiffs’ works in the LAION-400M dataset, by downloading copies of such works from the URLs in the dataset and using copies of such works to train its AI models;</li><li>Direct copyright infringement of plaintiffs’ works in the LAION-5B dataset, by downloading copies of such works from the URLs in the dataset, using copies of such works to train its AI models, and distributing the allegedly infringing Midjourney AI model v5.2 to the public;</li><li>Violations of DMCA § 1202(b), by knowingly removing or altering CMI from copies of plaintiffs’ works when training its AI models and Midjourney AI image product;</li><li>False endorsement in violation of the Lanham Act, by using plaintiffs’ names commercially in a name list to advertise its Midjourney AI image product; and</li><li>Vicarious trade dress infringement, by encouraging and inducing users of its Midjourney AI image product to enter artist-name prompts and generate outputs featuring the recurring visual elements and artistic techniques constituting plaintiffs’ protectable trade dress.</li></ol><p>As for Runway AI, plaintiffs asserted the following causes of action:</p><ol class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in the LAION-5B dataset, by downloading copies of such works from the URLs in the dataset, using copies of such works to train its AI models (including Stable Diffusion 1.5), and distributing the allegedly infringing Stable Diffusion 1.5 model to the public;</li><li>Induced copyright infringement, by materially contributing to downstream copyright infringement through distributing the allegedly infringing Stable Diffusion 1.5 model for free under the Creative ML Open RAIL-M license; and</li><li>Violations of DMCA § 1202, by (a) falsely asserting that third parties have a copyright in the Stable Diffusion 1.5 model when distributing them under the Creative ML Open RAIL-M license in violation of § 1202(a) and (b) knowingly removing or altering CMI from copies of plaintiffs’ works when training its AI models, which led to the its AI models generating outputs based on plaintiffs’ images with CMI removed or altered, in violation of § 1202(b).</li></ol><p>Plaintiffs also asserted a single cause of action against DeviantArt for direct copyright infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in the LAION-5B dataset, by incorporating the allegedly infringing Stable Diffusion 1.4 into the model underlying its DreamUp AI image product and distributing that model to the public. </p><p>Compared with their first amended complaint [129], plaintiffs’ second amended complaint [238] omitted their unjust enrichment claims against each defendant as well as their breach of contract claim against DeviantArt for violating its terms of service.</p></div></details>

Sept. 30, 2024 – Court denied Midjourney’s motion for reconsideration

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 30, 2024 – Court denied Midjourney’s motion for reconsideration</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 30, 2024 – Court denied Midjourney’s motion for reconsideration</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court issued an order denying Midjourney’s administrative motion [225] for clarification or, in the alternative, for leave to seek limited reconsideration of court order [223]. It explained that Midjourney’s objection to the court’s finding that plaintiffs had adequately identified the elements of their protected trade dress to survive Midjourney’s motion to dismiss [169] was a request for reconsideration and that Midjourney did not comply with the local civil rules when filing its motion, as Midjourney filed to identify a dispositive legal argument that was ignored by the court.</p></div></details>

Sept. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to strike Midjourney’s reply ISO administrative motion 

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to strike Midjourney’s reply ISO administrative motion </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to strike Midjourney’s reply ISO administrative motion </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed motion to strike Midjourney’s reply ISO the administrative motion because the local rules do not provide for a reply brief in support of a motion for administrative relief.</p></div></details>

Sept. 12, 2024 – Midjourney filed reply ISO  administrative motion for clarification or, in the alternative, motion for leave to seek limited reconsideration of court order [225] 

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 12, 2024 – Midjourney filed reply ISO  administrative motion for clarification or, in the alternative, motion for leave to seek limited reconsideration of court order [225] </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 12, 2024 – Midjourney filed reply ISO  administrative motion for clarification or, in the alternative, motion for leave to seek limited reconsideration of court order [225] </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Midjourney filed reply in support of its administrative motion [225]. Midjourney asserts, in summary, that plaintiffs’ opposition [226] demonstrates that plaintiffs have no response to the substance of Midjourney’s request and no explanation for why clarification would not be warranted here. &nbsp;</p></div></details>

Sept. 9, 2024 – Plaintiffs opposed Midjourney’s motion for clarification or limited reconsideration of court order 

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 9, 2024 – Plaintiffs opposed Midjourney’s motion for clarification or limited reconsideration of court order </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 9, 2024 – Plaintiffs opposed Midjourney’s motion for clarification or limited reconsideration of court order </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Midjourney’s motion for clarification or limited reconsideration [225] of the court’s order [223] granting in part and denying in part Midjourney’s motion to dismiss [169] the first amended complaint [129], arguing the motion was procedurally improper and asking the court to either deny or strike the motion in its entirety.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Plaintiffs argued that Midjourney made no effort to meet and confer with plaintiffs prior to filing and failed to submit a declaration as to why a stipulation could not be obtained, as required by the relevant local rule. In addition, plaintiffs argued that the motion merely sought to re-assert the same arguments Midjourney included in its motion to dismiss [169], which the court had already rejected in its order [223] ruling on the motion to dismiss. Finally, plaintiffs argued that Midjourney was attempting to use the administrative motion process as a vehicle to delay the litigation and revisit issues that the court had already decided.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

Sept. 5, 2024 – Midjourney filed motion for clarification or, alternatively, limited reconsideration 

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 5, 2024 – Midjourney filed motion for clarification or, alternatively, limited reconsideration </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Sept. 5, 2024 – Midjourney filed motion for clarification or, alternatively, limited reconsideration </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Midjourney filed a motion for clarification or, in the alternative, leave to seek limited reconsideration of the court’s order [223] granting in part and denying in part its motion to dismiss [169] plaintiffs’ first amended complaint [129]. Midjourney sought clarification as to what “concrete elements” comprised each plaintiff’s alleged trade dress under the vicarious trade dress infringement claim, as required by Rule 8. It explained that while the court’s order [223] found that the “recurring visual elements and artistic techniques” claimed as trade dress by plaintiffs were vague and possibly overbroad, neither the court’s order [223] nor the first amended complaint [129] identified any other element of trade dress claimed by plaintiffs.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Alternatively, Midjourney sought limited reconsideration of the court order [223] and a modified ruling requiring plaintiffs to list all concrete elements of each plaintiff’s alleged trade dress in the forthcoming second amended complaint, as well as plead facts to establish that those elements were non-functional and had acquired secondary meaning.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

August 12, 2024 – Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ separate motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">August 12, 2024 – Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

















</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">August 12, 2024 – Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Stability AI’s [162], DeviantArt’s [163], Runway AI’s [164], and Midjourney’s [169] motions to dismiss the first amended complaint [129].</p><p><em>Copyright Infringement Claims</em>. The court denied each of defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ direct and induced copyright infringement claims. Regarding the induced infringement claim against Stability AI, the court found it plausible to infer that end users’ operation of Stable Diffusion “create[d] copyright infringement” and thus the model “was created to facilitate that infringement” based on allegations that the model was trained “to a significant extent on copyrighted works” and that its operation “necessarily invokes ... protected elements of those works” to generate outputs. It also emphasized plaintiffs’ reliance on Stability AI’s CEO’s comments regarding Stable Diffusion’s ability to reproduce works in its training data to infer active inducement.</p><p>As for plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims against Runway AI, the court concluded that both contested theories of direct infringement—that Stable Diffusion 1.5 itself was an infringing copy or derivative work and that Runway AI’s distribution of the model infringed plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of distribution—were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. It pointed to plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Stability AI’s CEO’s comments, academic papers indicating the model was capable of producing outputs very similar to its training images, and use of their names as prompts to create outputs mimicking aspects of their works. Moreover, the court found plaintiffs’ allegations that Runway AI assisted in the development of Stable Diffusion and thus knew the model used the training images in its operation, and that Runway AI “actively induce[d]” downloads of the model, stated a plausible claim for induced infringement.</p><p>The court also found plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim for direct infringement against Midjourney based on allegations that Midjourney incorporated Stable Diffusion into its AI product and used the LAION datasets to separately train its AI product. Further, it explained that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged their works were included in the LAION datasets and that Midjourney’s AI product produced images substantially similar to their works when their names were included in prompts.</p><p>And with respect to the direct infringement claim against DeviantArt, the court concluded that plaintiffs stated a plausible claim based on DeviantArt’s incorporation of Stable Diffusion within its DreamUp tool. It emphasized plaintiffs’ allegations regarding how protected elements of their works remained in Stable Diffusion after training and could be invoked to create outputs substantially similar to plaintiffs’ works.</p><p><em>DMCA Claims</em>. The court dismissed each of plaintiffs’ DMCA claims with prejudice. It found plaintiffs’ § 1202(a) claims against Stability AI and Runway AI insufficient because it was “implausible” that readers of the license disclosures for Stable Diffusion, under which copyright ownership was asserted for the model, “would understand that [defendants are] claiming rights to or conveying any false information regarding the rights of plaintiffs.” Regarding the § 1202(b)(1) claims against Stability AI, Runway AI, and Midjourney, the court agreed with the court’s reasoning in <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/the-copilot-litigation/">Doe v. GitHub</a> that § 1202(b) claims require CMI to be removed or altered in “identical” copies and concluded that plaintiffs’ failure to allege “that any output from Stable Diffusion was identical to a plaintiff’s work” required dismissal.</p><p><em>Unjust Enrichment Claims</em>. The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims against each defendant but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. It concluded the unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the Copyright Act because they were tied to defendants’ alleged use of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works “to train, develop, and promote” its AI models without consent and plaintiffs failed to identify an “extra element” that “change[d] the nature of those state [law] claims to protect something other than rights protected under the Copyright Act.”</p><p><em>Lanham Act Claims</em>. The court found that plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claims against Midjourney were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Regarding the false endorsement claim, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations that Midjourney’s use of their names in a list describing the styles that its AI product could produce and in connection with a “showcase” of user-created images on its website sufficiently alleged a likelihood of confusion as to their endorsement of Midjourney’s AI product.</p><p>On the vicarious trade dress infringement claim, the court concluded that “the combination of identified [trade dress] elements and images,” together with allegations about how the “CLIP-guided diffusion model” worked as a “trade dress database” and Midjourney’s use of their names in promoting its AI product, provided the basis for a plausible trade dress claim. It also found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Midjourney’s “joint ownership or control” over the allegedly infringing images.</p><p><em>Breach of Contract Claim</em>. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against DeviantArt with prejudice, finding that “plaintiffs cannot state a breach of contract claim as a matter of law based on allegations that DeviantArt knew Stable Diffusion was trained on LAION datasets that had been scraped in part from DeviantArt’s website” and then itself used Stable Diffusion, as plaintiffs “admit that DeviantArt played no role in the scraping or training” of Stable Diffusion.</p></div></details>

July 17, 2024 – Midjourney filed statement of recent decision in <em>Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc</em>. 

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 17, 2024 – Midjourney filed statement of recent decision in <em>Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc</em>. </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 17, 2024 – Midjourney filed statement of recent decision in <em>Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc</em>. </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Midjourney filed a statement of recent decision to inform the court of a recent ruling in <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/the-copilot-litigation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Doe v. GitHub, Inc.</a>, which it argued was relevant to its pending motion to dismiss. In that case, Midjourney explained the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims with prejudice because the plaintiffs had not identified “even a single example of Copilot producing an identical copy of any work,” as required by the DMCA’s identicality requirement.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

May 7, 2024 - Court tentatively ruled on motions to dismiss.

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 7, 2024 - Court tentatively ruled on motions to dismiss.</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">



</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 7, 2024 - Court tentatively ruled on motions to dismiss.</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In advance of the May 8 hearing, the court issued the following tentative rulings:</p><p>The court is likely to grant a request from plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add additional plaintiffs, but not to include the new unjust enrichment claims, reiterating that the court believes such claims are preempted by the Copyright Act.</p><p>The court is likely to deny the motions to dismiss the direct and induced infringement claims, noting that the facts regarding how the diffusion models operate should be tested at summary judgment. The court is inclined to grant the motions to dismiss the DMCA and contract claims and deny the motion to dismiss the false endorsement and trade claims.</p></div></details>

Mar. 21, 2024 - Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ separate motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Mar. 21, 2024 - Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">



























</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Mar. 21, 2024 - Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the separate Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss filed by each of the defendant groups – Midjourney [169], DeviantArt [163], Runway AI [164], and Stability AI [162].</p><p><em>Midjourney’s Motion to Dismiss</em>. In response to Midjourney’s motion to dismiss [169], plaintiffs argued their claims for direct copyright infringement (Counts 5-6) should not be dismissed because they adequately alleged that Midjourney reproduced their copyrighted images by downloading them from the Internet (through URLs in the LAION datasets) and used those copies to train its AI models. Plaintiffs also argued that Midjourney’s AI models were infringing copies of their images, citing research suggesting that diffusion models are compressed versions of the training data and outputs generated in response to prompts referencing plaintiffs or their images. Similarly, plaintiffs argued that Midjourney’s AI models were infringing derivative works, explaining the models were developed using copies of their images and produced outputs substantially similar to their images.</p><p>Plaintiffs argued they had adequately pled their DMCA claims (Count 7) by alleging facts to support each element of a § 1202 violation. Plaintiffs alleged Midjourney’s initial copies of their works contained CMI (e.g., artist names, captions, and watermarks) and Midjourney knew the training process was designed to remove and alter this CMI. Further, plaintiffs argued Midjourney had sufficient knowledge that its distribution of these copies without CMI would lead to further infringement, as “the point of Midjourney is to encourage the use of artist names as prompts” to generate outputs in their style. Plaintiffs also challenged Midjourney’s identicality argument, explaining that § 1202 “includes no requirement that the output work be original or identical to obtain relief.”</p><p>Regarding their false endorsement claim (Count 8), plaintiffs argued they had sufficiently alleged that Midjourney’s publication of a “style list,” naming several plaintiffs, and encouragement of users to include names from that list in prompts was likely to cause consumer confusion as to whether those plaintiffs had endorsed Midjourney’s AI products. As for their vicarious trade dress infringement claim (Count 9), plaintiffs argued that Midjourney had sufficient control over its AI products that customers used to recreate plaintiffs’ artistic styles (which were protectable trade dress) and itself used examples of infringing outputs to promote those products and earn a profit.</p><p>Plaintiffs also argued that their unjust enrichment claim (Count 10) was not preempted by the Copyright Act, emphasizing the claim was based on Midjourney’s use of their names and artistic styles to promote the ability of its AI products to mimic their works and thus “does not sound in copyright at all.”</p><p><em>DeviantArt’s Motion to Dismiss</em>. In response to DeviantArt’s motion to dismiss [163], plaintiffs argued they had stated a plausible claim for direct copyright infringement (Count 15) by alleging that DeviantArt knowingly copied the infringing Stable Diffusion model and incorporated it into its DreamUp tool. Plaintiffs also argued that the DreamUp tool itself became an infringing derivative work based upon their images once DeviantArt incorporated the Stable Diffusion model. They also noted the DreamUp tool would be an infringing copy of their images if it is found (during discovery) to reproduce protected expression from those images. And with respect to DeviantArt’s fair use argument, plaintiffs argued this issue should not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.</p><p>As for their claim that DeviantArt breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 16), plaintiffs argued they sufficiently alleged that DeviantArt breached its own terms of service by exceeding its limited license to use content uploaded on its website when it incorporated the Stable Diffusion model, trained on images from its website, into its DreamUp tool. By doing so, they explained that DeviantArt “unleashed a flood of AI-generated images” that “immediately began drowning out” their works.</p><p>Plaintiffs also argued their unjust enrichment claim (Count 17) was not preempted because this claim was based on DeviantArt’s misrepresentation in its terms of use and misappropriation of content uploaded to its website when developing the DreamUp tool, which places the claim “outside the zone of preemption by the Copyright Act.”</p><p><em>Runway AI’s Motion to Dismiss</em>. Opposing Runway AI’s motion to dismiss [164], plaintiffs argued they stated a plausible claim for direct copyright infringement (Count 11) for similar reasons to those stated in its opposition [176] to Midjourney’s motion to dismiss [169]. Plaintiffs also argued that their exclusive distribution rights were infringed when Runway AI distributed the infringing Stable Diffusion model to the public through GitHub and Hugging Face. And in response to Runway AI’s contention that Stable Diffusion was “a statistical model,” plaintiffs explained “[t]he fact that the work of authorship itself may be ‘fundamentally differen[t],’ … from the physical or digital media where it is fixed as a copy is irrelevant.” Thus, Runway AI could not rely on the fact that Stable Diffusion “is not outwardly similar to” plaintiffs’ images to defend their direct infringement claim.</p><p>As for their contributory copyright infringement claim (Count 12), plaintiffs argued they had sufficiently alleged that Runway AI distributed the infringing Stable Diffusion model through GitHub and Hugging Face, leading to a plausible inference that users downloaded copies thereof. Further, they alleged that Runway AI promoted infringing uses of Stable Diffusion by advertising its ability to mimic human artwork, failing to take steps to prevent infringing uses, and profiting from such infringement. </p><p>Plaintiffs argued their DMCA claims (Count 13) should not be dismissed because they sufficiently alleged Runway AI’s violations of § 1202(a) and (b). Plaintiffs alleged that Runway AI violated § 1202(a) by downloading copies of their images with CMI from the LAION-5B dataset, removing or altering this CMI during model training, and then distributing the Stable Diffusion model under its own copyright. As for their § 1202(b) claim, plaintiffs alleged Runway AI knowingly removed CMI from their images (evidenced by the watermark detection feature in the LAION-5B dataset) when training the Stable Diffusion model and promoted use of that model knowing users would be copying those images with CMI removed.</p><p>Plaintiffs argued their unjust enrichment claim (Count 14) was not preempted by the Copyright Act for the same reasons their unjust enrichment claim against Midjourney was not preempted.</p><p><em>Stability AI’s Motion to Dismiss</em>. In response to Stability AI’s motion to dismiss [162], plaintiffs argued they had stated a plausible claim for contributory copyright infringement (Count 2). They pointed to allegations that Stability AI distributed the infringing Stable Diffusion models through GitHub and Hugging Face, and users who download these models thereby infringe upon plaintiffs’ copyrights. Further, plaintiffs alleged Stability AI’s Reimagine XL application allowed users to generate outputs substantially similar to their images. Plaintiffs argued that Stability AI promoted infringing uses of the model and Reimagine XL by advertising the ability to “recreate” any of the training images, including plaintiffs’ works.</p><p>As for their DMCA claims (Count 3), plaintiffs argued they had adequately pled Stability AI’s violation of § 1202(b) by alleging that Stability AI knew their images contained CMI and that the “diffusion” model training was designed to remove or alter CMI, and then distributed their images without CMI “in and through” the Stable Diffusion models. They also argued this removal or alteration of CMI “improves and expands” infringing uses by concealing the fact that the models are infringing copies or derivatives of their images. As for their § 1202(a) claim, plaintiffs made similar arguments to those in its opposition [175] to Runway AI’s motion to dismiss [164].&nbsp;</p><p>Finally, plaintiffs argued their unjust enrichment claim (Count 4) was not preempted because the “crux” of this claim “revolves not around plaintiffs’ works, but around plaintiffs themselves.”&nbsp;</p></div></details>

Feb. 8-9, 2024 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Feb. 8-9, 2024 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">































</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Feb. 8-9, 2024 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Each of the four defendant groups – Midjourney, DeviantArt, Runway AI, and Stability AI – filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.</p><p><em>Midjourney’s Motion to Dismiss.</em> In its motion [169], Midjourney moved to dismiss with prejudice all claims alleged against it under Rule 12(b)(6).</p><p>Midjourney challenged plaintiffs’ direct copyright infringement claims (Counts 5-6), arguing that speculating that Midjourney “must have copied” plaintiffs’ works because plaintiffs were able to make the tool produce substantially similar outputs is not sufficient. Midjourney also noted that the complaint fails to identify which of plaintiffs’ works in the LAION datasets were used to train its AI models. Midjourney also opposed plaintiffs’ “unsupportable” theory that its AI models themselves were both an infringing “copy” and “derivative work” of each copyrighted image in the training dataset, arguing that “[s]oftware code for a machine learning diffusion model” was not substantially similar to images or artwork and that mathematical representations of the “denoising steps” used to reconstruct the training images were not copyrightable expression.</p><p>Midjourney argued that the DMCA §&nbsp;1202(b) claim (Count 7) failed to identify any specific CMI that was allegedly removed or altered during model training. Midjourney argued this claim was deficient for failing to allege that it had created identical copies where CMI was removed or altered and that such removal or alteration had caused or concealed any actual infringement.</p><p>Midjourney called plaintiffs’ claim of false endorsement (Count 8) “baseless” for failing to explain why users would mistakenly believe that the plaintiffs named in its “style list” had endorsed the Midjourney platform.</p><p>Midjourney argued that the vicarious trade dress infringement claim (Count 9) “fails to cite a single example of alleged direct trade dress infringement” for which it could be held vicariously liable.</p><p>Finally, Midjourney (and all other defendants) argued that plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim (Count 10) was merely a “re-packaged copyright claim” preempted by the Copyright Act.</p><p><em>DeviantArt’s Motion to Dismiss.</em> In its motion [163], DeviantArt moved to dismiss with prejudice all of plaintiffs’ claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6).</p><p>DeviantArt challenged plaintiffs’ direct copyright infringement claim (Count 15) by pointing out that plaintiffs’ theory that it had infringed by “implement[ing] an AI model” that “it had no role in creating, developing, or training” had already been rejected by the court in an earlier ruling. DeviantArt also contested plaintiffs’ theory that its DreamUp image generation tool was itself both a copy and derivative work of every copyrighted work it was trained upon by making arguments similar to Midjourney.</p><p>DeviantArt argued that any use of copyrighted works to create DreamUp was fair use, relying on cases that held that copying in order to extract unprotectable elements and create a non-infringing product is fair use. Under the first factor, DeviantArt argued its use was transformative because it was done for a “legitimate” and “non-exploitative purpose”: to “create an entirely new platform” that did not display protected expression of the training data. And under the fourth factor, it argued that, even assuming a licensing market existed for AI training data, “a finding that the use was transformative forecloses any cognizable market harm.” As for the claim that it had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 16), DeviantArt challenged plaintiffs’ theory that DreamUp had “unleashed a flood of AI-generated images” that competed with plaintiffs’ works, noting that plaintiffs did not identify a provision in their terms of service that implied DeviantArt would protect plaintiffs from competition.</p><p><em>Runway AI’s Motion to Dismiss.</em> Runway AI moved [164] to dismiss with prejudice all claims alleged against it under Rule 12(b)(6), except for the direct copyright infringement claim (Count 11), to the extent the allegation was based on its training of the Stable Diffusion 1.5 model.</p><p>Runway AI argued that Stable Diffusion 1.5 was “a statistical model,” which did not “store” protected expression from the training data, and that plaintiffs had already admitted the model was “unlikely to output anything that looks like ‘a close match’” to plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, so the model itself could not be an infringing copy or derivative work (Count 11).</p><p>For the contributory infringement claim (Count 12), Runway AI argued plaintiffs failed to adequately plead specific infringing acts by users or “active steps” taken by Runway AI to induce any such infringement. Runway AI argued plaintiffs’ allegations simply identified potential infringing uses of an AI model with substantial non-infringing uses.</p><p>Like Midjourney, Runway AI moved to dismiss DMCA §&nbsp;1202 claims (Count 13) on the grounds that plaintiff failed to allege that the Stable Diffusion model or any of its outputs were an identical copy of plaintiffs’ works. Runway AI further argued that plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled the double-scienter elements under § 1202(a) and (b).</p><p><em>Stability AI’s Motion to Dismiss.</em> In its motion [162], Stability AI requested dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of all claims brought against it, except for plaintiffs’ direct copyright infringement claim based on its training of the Stable Diffusion models (Count 1).</p><p>With respect to plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claim (Count 2), Stability AI argued that plaintiffs failed to allege affirmative actions evidencing a “specific intent to foster” actual copyright infringement by distributing an AI model that was capable of substantial non-infringing uses. It also emphasized that plaintiffs had not identified any specific direct infringement “beyond a vague gesture to ‘anyone’ who uses or deploys its models.” </p><p>Stability AI argued that Stable Diffusion’s outputs were not identical to copyrighted works in the training data, so failure to include CMI was not an intentional “removal” in violation of § 1202(b) (Count 3). Further, Stability AI argued that encouraging the use of artists’ names in style prompts did not amount to a “knowing” facilitation or concealment of infringement. Stability AI also challenged plaintiffs’ § 1202(a) claim by arguing that its assertion of copyright in the Stable Diffusion models within a license file did not convey false CMI with an intent to facilitate or conceal infringement.</p></div></details>

Dec. 20, 2023 – DeviantArt renewed its anti-SLAPP motion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Dec. 20, 2023 – DeviantArt renewed its anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Dec. 20, 2023 – DeviantArt renewed its anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>DeviantArt moved to renew its special motion under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute) to strike Counts 4 and 5 of plaintiffs’ [1] complaint. This motion to strike is based on (1) the court’s prior determination that plaintiffs’ right-of-publicity claims “failed to state a plausible claim under 12(b)(6),” (2) plaintiffs’ omission of their right-of-publicity claims from their [129] amended complaint and (3) DeviantArt’s prior showing that the “now-abandoned right-of-publicity claims burdened protected expression.” DeviantArt asked the court to decide whether DeviantArt’s special motion to strike has merit under the cited statute for both counts of statutory and common law rights of publicity and whether DeviantArt is therefore entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.</p></div></details>

Nov. 29, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Nov. 29, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

















</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Nov. 29, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs amended their complaint, with more artists joining as plaintiffs and naming Runway AI as an additional defendant.</p><p>The counts were organized by defendant.</p><p>For Stability AI, plaintiffs noted that its models have changed behavior, no longer responding to plaintiffs’ names as generative AI prompts. The amended complaint lists the following causes of action against Stability AI:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement by training the Stability Model on LAION-5B Registered Works (Count 1)</li><li>Induced copyright infringement by distributing its trained models (Count 2)</li><li>DMCA § 1202 violations for removing and altering CMI of training images from all plaintiffs’ works AI (Count 3)</li><li>Unjust enrichment (Count 4)</li></ol><p>For Midjourney, plaintiffs raised the following claims:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement by training the Midjourney 400M Models on LAION-400M Registered Works (Count 5)</li><li>Direct copyright infringement by training the Midjourney 5B Models on LAION-5B Registered Works (Count 6)</li><li>DMCA § 1202 violations for removing and altering CMI of training images (Count 7)</li><li>False endorsement under Lanham Act (Count 8)</li><li>Vicarious trade-dress violation under Lanham Act (Count 9)</li><li>Unjust enrichment (Count 10)</li></ol><p>For Runway AI, plaintiffs raised the following claims based on Runway AI’s training of Stable Diffusion 1.5:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement of LAION-5B Registered Works (Count 11)</li><li>Induced copyright infringement by distributing Stable Diffusion 1.5 &nbsp;(Count 12)</li><li>DMCA § 1202 violations for removing and altering CMI of training images (Count 13)</li><li>Unjust enrichment (Count 14)</li></ol><p>Plaintiffs’ claims against DeviantArt stem from allegations that DeviantArt acted as the source of millions of images in the LAION-5B dataset, as well as from DeviantArt incorporating Stable Diffusion in its DreamUp tool. The causes of action against DeviantArt are:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement by integrating Stable Diffusion in DreamUp (Count 15)</li><li>Breach of contract for violating its terms of service (Count 16)</li><li>Unjust enrichment (Count 17)</li></ol></div></details>

Oct. 30, 2023 – Court granted motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Oct. 30, 2023 – Court granted motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">





















</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Oct. 30, 2023 – Court granted motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In an order [117], Judge Orrick found plaintiffs’ complaint “defective in numerous aspects” and gave plaintiffs leave to amend “to provide clarity regarding their theories of how each defendant separately violated their copyrights, removed or altered their copyright management information, or violated their rights of publicity and plausible facts in support.” Each defendant separately moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint [49, 52, 58], and Judge Orrick addressed their arguments collectively.</p><p>On the Copyright Act claims (direct and vicarious copyright infringement), the court found that plaintiffs failed to address or contest defendants’ arguments that plaintiffs McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they were not asserting copyright claims on behalf of McKernan and Ortiz, so the court dismissed those claims with prejudice. With regards to plaintiff Andersen, the court denied Stability AI’s motion to dismiss Count 1, but granted DeviantArt and Midjourney’s motion with respect to Count 1. The court also dismissed Count 2 against all defendants.</p><p>For Count 1, Andersen’s primary theory of direct copyright infringement is based on Stability AI’s scraping and use of Training Images (including Andersen’s copyrighted works) to train Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion. The court found that Andersen adequately alleged direct infringement against Stability AI based on allegations stated in the complaint – that Stability AI “downloaded or otherwise acquired copies of billions of copyrighted images without permission to create Stable Diffusion” and used, stored, and incorporated those protected images into the AI as compressed copies for training purposes. Stability AI opposed the truth of plaintiffs’ assertions but did not otherwise oppose the sufficiency of the allegations, so the court denied Stability’s motion to dismiss.</p><p>The court dismissed, with leave to amend, Andersen’s direct infringement allegations against DeviantArt and Midjourney. The court found that Andersen failed “to allege specific plausible facts that DeviantArt played any affirmative role in the scraping and using of [plaintiffs’] works to create the Training Images.” For the claims against Midjourney, the court could not determine whether Andersen’s theory of direct infringement was based on Midjourney’s use of Stable Diffusion, on Midjourney’s own independent use of Training Images to train their product, or both.</p><p>Significantly, the court rejected plaintiffs’ theory that all output images of the generative AI tools were necessarily infringing derivative works of the copyrighted training images, “especially in light of plaintiffs’ admission that Output Images are unlikely to look like the Training Images.” Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ theory that Midjourney and DeviantArt’s generative AI tools directly infringed (Count 1) and that any of the defendants were liable for vicarious infringement for their end user’s use of such tools to create outputs (Count 2).</p><p>The court also dismissed the DMCA § 1202 violations (Count 3), right of publicity claims (Counts 4-5), unfair competition claim (Count 6), and breach of contract claim (Count 7) with leave to amend.</p><p>For the DMCA claim, the court instructed plaintiffs to “identify the particular types of their CMI from their works that they believe were removed or altered” and “clarify and then allege plausible facts regarding which defendants … did the stripping or altering in violation of the DMA and when that occurred.”</p><p>For the right of publicity claims, the court found the complaint failed to provide specific facts plausibly alleging that any defendant “appropriated plaintiffs’ names” in advertising, selling, or soliciting purchase of defendants’ products and failed to allege plausible harm to plaintiffs’ goodwill that could result from an AI-generated image being potentially mistaken for plaintiffs’ works.”</p><p>The court found the unfair competition claims as pleaded were preempted by the Copyright Act. The court instructed plaintiffs to amend to allege facts “regarding how each defendants’ AI product uses plaintiff’s names or associates works with plaintiffs and, for purposes of any claim under the fraudulent prong, facts that meet the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard.”</p><p>On the breach of contract claim (raised against DeviantArt only), the court instructed plaintiffs to identify “the exact provisions” DeviantArt allegedly breached and include “facts in support of breach of each identified provision.”</p><p>The court denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss the declaratory relief claim (Count 8), but did suggest that plaintiffs identify the scope of declaratory relief sought and provide examples of declaratory relief sought that are not merely duplicative of the scope of their statutory claims in their amended complaint.</p><p>The court deferred ruling on DeviantArt’s anti-SLAPP motion [50] until the plaintiffs reallege their right to publicity claims and also denied Midjourney’s motion to strike the class allegations [54], instead deferring a decision on Midjourney’s allegations to the class certification stage.</p></div></details>

July 19, 2023 – Hearing on motions to dismiss was held before Judge Orrick

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 19, 2023 – Hearing on motions to dismiss was held before Judge Orrick</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 19, 2023 – Hearing on motions to dismiss was held before Judge Orrick</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>A ruling is expected in the next few months.</p></div></details>

July 3, 2023 – Defendants replied in support of their motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 3, 2023 – Defendants replied in support of their motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">





</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 3, 2023 – Defendants replied in support of their motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><em>DeviantArt Reply. </em>In its reply [77], DeviantArt argued that it should not be a defendant in this case, as “it makes no sense to try to tag the actor who implements an open-source image generation tool with liability allegedly arising from its creation.” They argued plaintiffs have “concoct[ed] theories of liability so expansive that no court has ever recognized them,” like liability for another’s removal of CMI. DeviantArt explained why it believes plaintiffs have not sufficiently identified registered works that were infringed (consistent with Midjourney’s reply discussed below). They also argued that plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries of their Terms of Service and such conclusory allegations are not supported by fact.</p><p><em>Midjourney Reply.</em> In its reply [74], Midjourney characterized plaintiffs’ theories as “speculative grievance and finger-pointing.” They pointed to plaintiffs’ “concession” that two of the named defendants have no “material that was registered,” arguing the claims need to be dismissed with prejudice. And, for the one plaintiff with registered works, Midjourney argued that the complaint does not allege that any work appearing in the training set was registered, so it is “impossible to tell from the Complaint which of Andersen’s registered works, if any, were allegedly trained on by any Defendant, much less Midjourney.” Midjourney also argued that to the extent infringement claims are based on training of Stable Diffusion, “Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against Midjourney based on training in which it played no (alleged or actual) role.”</p><p>With respect to the right-of-publicity claims, Midjourney argued that plaintiffs have “retreat[ed] from claiming publicity rights in artistic ‘styles’ and refashion their claims around Midjourney having ‘designed its [platform] to respond to the names of any artist.’”</p><p><em>Stability AI Reply.</em> Stability AI reiterated the arguments in Midjourney’s reply that plaintiffs have conceded the copyright infringement claims for the two named plaintiffs who lack copyright registration and that Andersen’s claims are deficient for failing to identify which registered works were infringed. Stability AI also argued that the theories that Stable Diffusion infringes by “compressing” or “containing” works fail because Stability Diffusion does not store compressed copies. After reiterating its arguments from its original motion, Stability AI urged dismissal of all claims with prejudice as amendment would be futile.</p></div></details>

July 3, 2023 – DeviantArt replied in support of anti-SLAPP motion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 3, 2023 – DeviantArt replied in support of anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 3, 2023 – DeviantArt replied in support of anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In its reply [78], DeviantArt argued that the right-of-publicity claims arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute because the accused activity (DeviantArt providing a tool that allows users to create artworks emulating recognized artists’ styles) qualifies as conduct furthering free speech rights on an issue of public interest. DeviantArt contended that commercial speech is not excluded from anti-SLAPP protection and that the exemptions cited by plaintiffs are inapplicable.</p><p>DeviantArt also argued plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Copyright Act because plaintiffs attempt to assert rights over artistic styles. DeviantArt said plaintiffs abandoned claims over style misuse and now improperly allege name misuse, but the right of publicity does not grant absolute name control, especially for referring to artistic work. DeviantArt contended there are no factual allegations it actually used plaintiffs’ names in ads. Finally, DeviantArt argued that even if the claims were valid, the First Amendment protects speech referring to artists by name when discussing their work. Therefore, DeviantArt urged the court to strike the right-of-publicity claims. Midjourney and Stability AI joined the reply [79, 80].</p></div></details>

June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss complaint

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In their oppositions [65-67] to defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, plaintiffs maintained their claims are sufficiently pleaded:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li><em>Copyright infringement. </em>Plaintiffs argued they sufficiently identified the factual basis for their infringement theory: direct infringement by distributing Stable Diffusion, which contains “compressed copies of the training images”; “direct infringement by creating and distributing” technologies built on Stable Diffusion, which are “infringing derivative work[s]”; and “generating and distributing output images which are infringing derivative works.” Plaintiffs also argued they sufficiently identified the infringed works and noted that when there is alleged “massive infringement” the complaint need not require a statement of “each and every example of infringement.”</li><li><em>DMCA violations. </em>Plaintiffs reiterated that their allegation is that their works were incorporated “in their entirety” in the AI Image Product, which in turn generates outputs that are all reconstructed copies of plaintiffs’ works, necessarily removing the CMI from those works.</li><li><em>Right-of-publicity claims.</em> Plaintiffs argued that such claims are not preempted because the Copyright Act does not protect a person’s name or likeness, which is what the right-of-publicity claims address, and the accused conduct is not sufficiently transformative to fall under the purview of the First Amendment.</li><li><em>Breach of contract claim against DeviantArt. </em>Plaintiffs disagreed with DeviantArt’s characterization of plaintiffs’ allegations, explaining that DeviantArt breached its obligations both by incorporating Stable Diffusion into its DreamUp product and because the Terms of Service “create[] a promise to users as third parties that other users of DeviantArt, such as Stability, would not leverage works hosted on DeviantArt for commercial purposes without permission,” making plaintiffs third-party beneficiaries.</li><li><em>Sufficiency under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).</em> Plaintiffs responded to DeviantArt’s arguments that the complaint doesn’t sufficiently allege conduct by DeviantArt to support its claims, arguing plaintiffs “have alleged DeviantArt chose to embrace Stable Diffusion, market and sell an app based on Stable Diffusion called DreamUp, and make money from DreamUp” and that DeviantArt’s arguments are improperly based on a lack of knowledge or intent, neither of which is an element of a copyright infringement claim.</li></ol></div></details>

June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to anti-SLAPP motion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">June 2, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In their opposition [69], plaintiffs argued that an artist suing a corporation for copyright infringement and unauthorized misuse of their name is simply not a SLAPP and that defendants’ “computer-generated speech is misleading and false commercial speech” and therefore afforded no protection. They also argued that defendants’ arguments that their use is sufficiently “transformative” is an affirmative defense whose burden has not been met, and thus not a sufficient basis for striking the claims under the anti-SLAPP statute.</p></div></details>

April 18, 2023 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">April 18, 2023 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">







</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">April 18, 2023 – Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><em>DeviantArt’s motion to dismiss. </em>DeviantArt filed a motion [49] to dismiss all claims against it on the grounds that the claims are insufficiently pleaded because the allegations are undifferentiated, violating Fed. R. Civ. P.&nbsp;8(a)(2). DeviantArt argued the only alleged conduct of DeviantArt that gives rise to the complaint comprises operating its own website; unknowingly serving as the source of images that were scraped and used, without DeviantArt’s consent; and creating a service allowing users to access the open-source Stable Diffusion. DeviantArt emphasized that the “core conduct” of the complaint — “using pre-existing content to create novel AI technology” — predates anything DeviantArt did that pertains to the claims asserted.</p><p>DeviantArt also challenged the individual causes of action as failing to meet the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6): DeviantArt argued Counts 1-2 fail to identify the allegedly infringed works and rely on the flawed theory that every output image is a derivative work, and also allege infringement of works that are not registered with the Copyright Office. DeviantArt argued that Count 3 fails to identify the purportedly removed CMI and that the outputs of the technology, which plaintiffs admit are not identical or near identical copies of the underlying works, cannot form the basis for a DMCA claim. Count 6 fails for the same reasons as Counts 1-3. Counts 4-5 are preempted by the Copyright Act and barred by the First Amendment. Count 7 (the breach of DeviantArt Terms of Service claim) is based on alleged breaches by Stability AI of its alleged obligations to DeviantArt, not a breach by DeviantArt of alleged obligations to plaintiffs. Finally, DeviantArt argued that Count 8 fails to adequately state any of the underlying claims.</p><p><em>Midjourney’s motion to dismiss. </em>Midjourney filed a [52] motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of relief, and Rule 12(f), arguing this case cannot be maintained as a class action.</p><p>Midjourney’s arguments for dismissing Counts 1-6 and 8 (all the claims asserted against it) largely mirrored those raised in DeviantArt’s motion. Of note, Midjourney used DeviantArt’s argument that a copyright infringement action cannot be sustained for unregistered works to also argue that two of the plaintiffs lack standing as they do not own any copyright registrations.<em> </em></p><p><em>Stability AI’s motion to dismiss. </em>Stability AI filed a [58] motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) raising arguments consistent with those in the motions to dismiss filed by DeviantArt and Midjourney. Stability AI’s motion characterized its Stable Diffusion model and AI technology much differently than plaintiffs’ motion and argued that Stable Diffusion is not simply a “collage tool.” Stability AI argued that training a model like Stable Diffusion on images does not mean copying or memorizing images for later distribution. They asserted, “Stability AI enables creation; it is not a copyright infringer.”</p></div></details>

April 18, 2023 – DeviantArt filed anti-SLAPP motion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">April 18, 2023 – DeviantArt filed anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">April 18, 2023 – DeviantArt filed anti-SLAPP motion</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>In its motion [50], DeviantArt argued that Counts 4-5 (violations of statutory and common law rights of publicity) should be dismissed (1) as arising from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, (2) as preempted by the Copyright Act, (3) as barred by the First Amendment or (4) because the alleged conduct would not yield liability on the legal claims. Midjourney and Stability AI joined the motion [54, 59].</p></div></details>

Jan. 13, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed class action complaint

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Jan. 13, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed class action complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Jan. 13, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed class action complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Three visual-artist plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California against Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt based on Stable Diffusion, DreamStudio, Midjourney Product and DeviantArt’s DreamUp (the “AI Image Products”). Plaintiffs alleged that both the AI Image Products and all outputs therefrom are derivative works of the “particular images” the product “draws from when assembling a given output” and includes eight causes of action:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1" class="wp-block-list"><li>Direct copyright infringement, alleging that defendants infringed by downloading and storing plaintiffs’ works and incorporating those works into the AI Image Products (Count 1)</li><li>Vicarious copyright infringement, alleging that individuals used the AI Image Products to create “Fakes” using the artists’ name in the prompt (Count 2)</li><li>DMCA §&nbsp;1202 violations for removing or altering CMI from plaintiffs’ works by training “Stable Diffusion on those works and designing it to omit any CMI as part of the output[s],” which plaintiffs allege are derivative works of their materials (Count 3)</li><li>Violations of the California statutory right of publicity and the common law right of publicity (Counts 4-5)</li><li>Unfair competition based on copyright infringement and DMCA violations (Count 6)</li><li>Breach of contract for violation of DeviantArt terms of service (Count 7, misnumbered as Count 9)</li><li>Declaratory relief (Count 8, misnumbered as Count 7)</li></ol></div></details>

<strong>Select Court Documents</strong>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-1-Complaint-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 13, 2023 – ECF 1 Complaint</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-1-Complaint-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 13, 2023 – ECF 1 Complaint</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-49-DeviantArt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 49 DeviantArt Motion to Dismiss</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-49-DeviantArt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 49 DeviantArt Motion to Dismiss</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-50-DeviantArt-Special-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 50 DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-50-DeviantArt-Special-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 50 DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-52-Midjourney-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 52 Midjourney Motion to Dismiss</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-52-Midjourney-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 52 Midjourney Motion to Dismiss</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-54-Midjourney-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 54 Midjourney Joinder to DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-54-Midjourney-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 54 Midjourney Joinder to DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a></p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Select Court Documents</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-1-Complaint-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 13, 2023 – ECF 1 Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-49-DeviantArt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 49 DeviantArt Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-50-DeviantArt-Special-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 50 DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-52-Midjourney-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 52 Midjourney Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-54-Midjourney-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 54 Midjourney Joinder to DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-58-Stablity-AI-Amended-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 58 Stability AI Amended Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-59-Stability-AI-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 18, 2023 – ECF 59 Stability AI Joinder to [50] DeviantArt’s Special Motion to Strike</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-65-Opposition-to-DeviantArt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 2, 2023 – ECF 65 Opposition to [49] DeviantArt Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-66-Opposition-to-Stability-AI-Amended-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 2, 2023 – ECF 66 Opposition to [58] Stability AI Amended Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-67-Opposition-to-Midjourney-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 2, 2023 – ECF 67 Opposition to [52] Midjourney Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-69-Opposition-to-Special-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 2, 2023 – ECF 69 Opposition to [50] DeviantArt Special Motion to Strike</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-73-Stability-AI-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 73 Stability AI Reply ISO [58] Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-74-Midjourney-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 74 Midjourney Reply ISO [52] Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-77-Deviant-Art-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 77 DeviantArt Reply ISO [49] Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-78-DeviantArt-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 78 DeviantArt Reply ISO [50] Special Motion to Strike</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-79-Midjourney-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 79 Midjourney Joinder to [50] DeviantArt Reply</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-80-Stability-AI-Joinder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 3, 2023 – ECF 80 Stability AI Joinder to [50] DeviantArt Reply</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ECF-117-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Oct. 30, 2023 – ECF 117 Order on Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ECF-129-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nov. 29, 2023 – ECF 129 Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://bakerlaw-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/r/personal/tweisenberger_bakerlaw_com/Documents/AI Copyright Case Tracker/3 Andersen StabilityAI Pleadings/ECF 136 DeviantArt Motion to Renew Motion to Strike.pdf?csf=1&amp;web=1&amp;e=tOANm3" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dec. 20, 2023 – ECF 136 DeviantArt Motion to Renew Motion to Strik</a><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ECF-136-DeviantArt-Motion-to-Renew-Motion-to-Strike.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">e</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-162-Stability-AIs-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 8, 2024 – ECF 162 Stability AI’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-163-DeviantArts-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 8, 2024 – ECF 163 DeviantArt’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-164-Runway-AIs-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 8, 2024 – ECF 164 Runway AI’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-169-Midjourneys-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 9, 2024 – ECF 169 Midjourney’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-174-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Stability-AIs-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 21, 2024 – ECF 174 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Stability AI’s Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-175-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Runway-AIs-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 21, 2024 – ECF 175 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Runway AI’s Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-176-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Midjourneys-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 21, 2024 – ECF 176 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Midjourney’s Motion to Dismiss</a> </p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-177-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-DeviantArts-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 21, 2024 – ECF 177 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to DeviantArt’s Motion to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ECF-193-Tentative-Rulings-on-Motions-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 7, 2024 – ECF 193 Tentative Ruling on Motions to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ECF-220-Midjourneys-Statement-of-Recent-Decision.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 17, 2024 – ECF 220 Midjourney’s Statement of Recent Decision&nbsp;</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ECF-223-Order-Granting-in-Part-and-Denying-in-Part-Defendants-Motions-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">August 12, 2024 – ECF 223 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ECF-225-Midjourneys-Motion-for-Clarification-or-Limited-Reconsideration-of-Court-Order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 5, 2024 - ECF 225 Midjourney’s Motion for Clarification or Limited Reconsideration of Court Order [223]</a>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ECF-226-Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Midjourneys-Motion-for-Clarification-or-Limited-Reconsideration-of-Court-Order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 9, 2024 - ECF 226 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Midjourney’s Motion for Clarification or Limited Reconsideration of Court Order</a>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ECF-227-Reply-ISO-Administrative-Motion-for-Clarification-225.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 12, 2024 – ECF 227 Reply ISO Administrative Motion for Clarification [225]</a>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ECF-228-Motion-to-Strike-Administrative-Motion.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 13, 2024 - ECF 228 Motion to Strike Administrative Motion</a>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ECF-232-Order-Denying-Midjourneys-Motion-for-Clarification-or-Reconsideration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sept. 30, 2024 – ECF 232 Order Denying Midjourney’s Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ECF-238-Plaintiffs-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Oct. 31, 2024 – ECF 238 Second Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2024.12.06-Dkt-244-Stability-AI-Answer-to-Second-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dec. 6, 2024 – ECF 244 Stability AI Answer to Second Amended Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ECF-278.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 24, 2025 – ECF 278 Joint Status Report</a></p></div></details>