Darth Vader, Wonder Woman, and Minion all share common complaints. They are all replicated without permission by a Chinese AI company. So, Hollywood Studios suing Shanghai-based Minimax should say they swiped through the content. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in California, is the latest in a copyright case against an artificial intelligence company.
Although some of these film studios are competitors, they have joined forces in the fight against the appropriation of AI work. Disney, Warner Bros Discovery and Universal Pictures claim in their 119-page complaint that Minimax uses studio copyrighted characters, swipes through creative works to train AI, and leverages the characters to sell the AI product Hailuo AI.
Download the SAN app now to stay fair and up to date. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
A source familiar with the lawsuit told San that the studio is not anti-technology, but rather anti-theft. They want to abuse copyright laws and hold bad actors accountable to do their job as artists without permission.
“Minimax's copyright infringement is intentional and brave,” the complaint states. “Minimax Market has “Hollywood Studios in Your Pocket” as “Hollywood Studios in Your Pocket” – Minimax is a bold self-illuminated nickname considering that they built their business out of intellectual property stolen from Hollywood Studios like the plaintiffs.
Minimax did not respond to Sun with a comment. Nor has the official statement regarding the copyright lawsuit filed this week.
The lawsuit is the latest in a long list of complaints against AI companies in the ongoing legal battle to determine what rights AI has in using creative work without the artist's permission. Some say that AI presents existential threats to the film business and the creative industry as a whole.
“We are concerned that piracy will be unchecked and threatening the entire American film industry,” Charles Rivkin, CEO of the Motion Picture Association, said in a statement.
Copyright Case
The AI company lives in China, but the Hollywood Film Studio filed a lawsuit in California, applying US copyright laws to foreign companies.
They argued that Minimax is building their business by plundering the studio's intellectual property. Hailuo AI, a Minimax service, allows users to create content with iconic copyrighted characters.
In a joint statement to Sun, Disney, NBCuniversal and Warner Bros Discovery, “A responsible approach to AI innovation is important, and today's lawsuit against Minimax again demonstrates a common commitment to holding us liability for breaching copyright law.”
“The rebellion of Minimax's bootlegging business model and US copyright law is not only an attack on plaintiffs and hardworking creative communities who make the magic of film alive, but also a broader threat to the American film industry, which has created millions of jobs and contributed more than $260 billion to the country's economy,” the complaint states.
The studio insisted that the Shanghai company ignored requests from the studio and stopped them.
“Minimax completely ignores our copyright laws and treats the plaintiff's valuable copyrighted characters as themselves,” the complaint allegedly. “Not only has it been unable to act on the plaintiff's request to adopt reasonable measures taken by some AI services to avoid infringement, Minimax is actively involved in and encouraged infringement.”
Different perspectives
There are over 40 lawsuits in the United States involving artists suing AI companies that allegedly work without permission. Many artists, creative agencies, film studios and authors believe that AI is exploiting artists by not giving credit or compensation.
AI is taking it a step further, claiming that it can plunder the creative industry and build a career.
According to Emory University, “there is a growing fear in the creative industry,” he interviewed staff in the creative field about their feelings about the future of AI. “AI writes sonnets, composes music, mimics the artist's painting style. Some creatives wonder how far AI will infiltrate their livelihoods.
However, AI companies tend to take a different stance. Some argue that limiting what AI can use for training will limit innovation in artificial intelligence and slow progress.
It is also necessary to train AI models using vast amounts of information and datasets, companies keep citing legal arguments of fair use. The final result is not a copy, but a different product, so we do not copy the artist's work. This argument reflects the central tenets of the “fair use” law that often exists in journalistic works and other industries.
A groundbreaking decision that allows precedents to be set
In a historic decision by the author's class that brought Amazon-backed AI companies to court, the judge in June ruled in favour of AI companies. The judge ruled that the final product was transformative and therefore it was a fair use. In other words, it is different from the artist's original work.
But how AI companies acquire creative works could still be illegal if downloaded from, say, a pirate website, the judge said.
Relax with the author and avoid trial. Humanity provided the largest settlement in US copyright history: $1.5 billion. If approved by a federal judge, it would be around $3,000 for 500,000 authors. This is the first copyright case to put numbers into something worth training in artificial intelligence using the artist's work.
Legal ambiguity
With many lawsuits against AI companies currently underway, legal experts want clearer rules and will set precedents in this new technology, ART and AI frontier.
What is fair use? How are AI companies allowed to obtain artist materials? When and how should artists and creative agencies be compensated and credited? Will new copyright laws and boundaries be set? Do we need to establish ethical and moral boundaries?
Whether in trial or in a settlement, various cases will be resolved, so moving to this next frontier will set new standards.
Matthew Grisham (digital producer)
I contributed to this report.
