Recommended Free Tools
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Free scan · no reinstall
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFree scan · exact hardware match
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
Free scan · Windows 10 & 11
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
No—the artists have not won a final copyright judgment against AI image generators. In Andersen v. Stability AI, some copyright-related claims survived dismissal, and the case proceeded to evidence gathering. A June 2026 discovery order addressed what financial information the artists must provide; it did not decide whether any defendant infringed copyright or whether AI training is fair use.
Which lawsuit is this?
The headline refers to Andersen et al. v. Stability AI Ltd. et al., No. 3:23-cv-00201, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz brought the proposed class action over alleged use of artists’ work in AI image systems. The allegations are not findings.
The amended complaint named Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt and Runway AI. The case’s pleadings and defendant lineup developed over time. The federal case record provides the docket history.
#1 Best Overall
What did the artists allege?
The artists alleged that their copyrighted artwork was used in connection with datasets and AI image systems. Their claims concern alleged copying in training and the systems’ outputs. These remain allegations; the court orders reviewed here do not establish that every image was copied or that all generated images infringe.
What did the court actually do?
The case has had several procedural stages. On October 30, 2023, Judge William H. Orrick largely granted motions to dismiss the original complaint. One direct copyright claim by Sarah Andersen against Stability AI survived, and the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint.
On August 12, 2024, the court granted some dismissal requests and denied others concerning the amended complaint. Some theories remained while others were rejected or narrowed. That ruling addressed whether claims could proceed, not whether disputed allegations were true.
Rank #2
On June 17, 2026, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued a discovery order about the plaintiffs’ financial information. The order required them to supplement specified discovery responses with art-related revenue from non-asserted works for the period beginning January 1, 2020. It denied production of tax returns without prejudice, finding other discovery less intrusive at that point; renewed requests could be considered if the supplemental responses proved insufficient.
The order described fair use in generative-AI copyright cases as “an unsettled area of law” and said the court was “(within reason) … disinclined to prematurely limit” evidence that may bear on fair use. This was a discussion of discovery, not a decision that training is or is not fair use.
What does it mean that claims survived dismissal?
A motion to dismiss tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim, generally assuming well-pleaded allegations are true for that purpose. It does not decide whether those allegations are true. A claim that survives may proceed to discovery, where parties seek evidence. A discovery order governs what information must be produced; it does not decide liability.
So the procedural rulings are meaningful steps in the litigation, but they are not a final win on copyright infringement. The reviewed orders do not establish infringement, damages, a shutdown order, or a general rule that all AI training is unlawful. Do not describe the case as a certified class action unless certification is verified; the research identifies it as a proposed class action.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Keep three questions separate
- Training: Did particular copying to collect or use training material violate rights, or is it protected by a defense such as fair use?
- Outputs: Does a specific generated image copy protected expression from a specific work?
- Responsibility: What did each defendant do, and does the evidence satisfy the legal requirements for that defendant?
A procedural ruling does not settle these separate questions. The court orders covered here do not establish that every output infringes, that a particular artistic style is itself protected, or that one company’s conduct automatically establishes another’s liability.
How the Getty case fits in
Getty Images v. Stability AI is a separate case in England and Wales, with a different case number and judge. Its claims, legal setting and rulings are not rulings in Andersen. A result in one proceeding should not be presented as deciding the issues in the other.
What happens next?
The June 2026 order addressed a discovery dispute, not the final outcome or a current trial schedule. Do not state a trial date or final disposition without checking the live federal docket. In general, discovery rulings determine what evidence parties must exchange; later proceedings may address the remaining claims, but the sources reviewed here do not establish the case’s later schedule or disposition.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What artists and commercial users should take from it
For artists and rights holders, the case illustrates that procedural progress is not the same as proving infringement. The reviewed orders do not resolve whether training copies infringe, whether a particular output reproduces protected expression, or which defendant is responsible.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
For commercial users, this litigation is not a court-issued guarantee about any image generator or any particular output. Assess the terms and risks of the tool and intended use separately; the orders discussed here do not decide those questions for all users.
FAQ
Did the artists win the AI copyright case?
No. Some claims survived dismissal and the case continued into evidence gathering. The reviewed orders do not contain a final judgment finding copyright infringement.
Does this ruling mean AI training is illegal?
No. The orders do not establish a general rule that all AI training is unlawful or decide whether training in this case is fair use.
What does it mean that the claims survived dismissal?
It means the court allowed certain claims to proceed past an early test of whether the complaint stated legally plausible claims. It does not mean the allegations were proven.
Has the court ruled that Stability AI infringed?
Not in the orders covered by the research. The dismissal and discovery rulings addressed procedure and evidence, not a final finding of infringement.
What did the June 2026 discovery order decide?
It required specified supplemental information about art-related revenue from non-asserted works, while denying tax-return production without prejudice. It did not decide copyright liability or fair use.
The bottom line
The artists’ procedural progress in Andersen v. Stability AI is not a final victory on the merits. The June 2026 discovery order concerned financial information and possible evidence relevant to fair use; it did not find infringement, declare AI training unlawful, or settle the claims against the defendants.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
