Or not. They claimed a big win but it was not at all that. It was essentially not completely falling at the first hurdle. All bar one of their claims were d

Or not. They claimed a big win but it was not at all that. It was essentially not completely falling at the first hurdle. All bar one of their claims were dismissed. The remaining claim may not be a good claim, but it isn't completely laughable. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Andersen-v-Stability-AI- https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ander... Order-on-Motions-to-Dismiss-8-12-2024.pdf In October 2023, I largely granted the motions to dismiss brought by defendants Stability, Midjourney and DeviantArt. The only claim that survived was the direct infringement claim asserted against Stability, based on Stability’s alleged “creation and use of ‘Training Images’ scraped from the internet into the LAION datasets and then used to train Stable Diffusion.” I think you could have grounds for saying that construction of LAION violates copyright which would be covered by this. It doesn't necessarily mean training on LAION is copyright violation. None of this has been decided. It might be wrong. The rest of the case was "Not even wrong"