Public Beta · Not legal advice
← Interactive map

United States · US-003

Andersen v Stability AI

PLEADING SURVIVEDU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California3:23-cv-00201Pending - substantive pleading claims survived
TrainingModel-Level ReproductionOutputsSubstantial SimilarityFair UseTraining Data Traceability

Key holding or allegation

The court allowed significant training/model infringement theories to proceed at the pleading stage, accepting allegations as plausible without finding that model weights actually contain infringing copies or that training infringes.

Why it matters

Important U.S. pleading-stage comparator to German model-memorisation holdings.

Facts

Artists alleged use of their works to train Stable Diffusion and alleged legal significance of works represented within the model and outputs.

Issues before the court

Whether training/model-related infringement theories were sufficiently pleaded and whether protected works may be represented within the model in legally cognizable form.

What the court did not decide

No finding that Stable Diffusion actually contains copies of plaintiffs' works, no final infringement finding and no final fair-use determination.

Procedural timeline

2024

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Motion-to-dismiss ruling: Court allowed significant training/model infringement allegations involving Stable Diffusion to proceed as plausible at the pleading stage.

PLEADING SURVIVED