An artist fights back, and Midjourney has embarrassed themselves
We recorded 4 claims from this post. 2 were checked against evidence. 2 can’t be checked. 4 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (4)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“It also suggests that Midjourney has been trained on high-resolution copyright images, to which they may or may not have a license.”
What we tested: The evidence suggests Midjourney was trained on high-resolution copyrighted images, which it may or may not have a license for.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Sure looks like automated, digital plagiarism to me.”
What we tested: To Marcus, Midjourney's output closely resembling copyrighted film stills sure looks like automated, digital plagiarism.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“The output was not marked as being directly premised on copyrighted work”
What we tested: Midjourney's output was not labelled as being directly based on copyrighted work.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Before the day was done, Midjourney retaliated - by revoking Southen’s privileges and wiping his history.”
What we tested: Midjourney retaliated against Southen by revoking his access and wiping his history on the same day.
Held from this post (4)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Southen's experiment getting Midjourney to produce near-copies of copyrighted film stills took him almost no effort.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Southen's experiment shows that a Midjourney user could easily infringe copyright without meaning to.
- The two reviews read the claim differently