It seems like they focused too much on the details of how the model works and how data is encoded by the model. "In his dismissal of infringement claims, Orric

It seems like they focused too much on the details of how the model works and how data is encoded by the model. "In his dismissal of infringement claims, Orrick wrote that plaintiffs’ theory is “unclear” as to whether there are copies of training images stored in Stable Diffusion that are utilized by DeviantArt and Midjourney. He pointed to the defense’s arguments that it’s impossible for billions of images “to be compressed into an active program,” like Stable Diffusion." Perhaps future litigation will be more successful if they treat the model as a black box. Could an argument be made that a person's intellectual property was used to train the model without compensation and _that_ is the illegal act? From there one would only have to demonstrate that the output form the model is similar to a person's body of work.