The court emphasized that to claim copyright infringement, there must be a demonstrable and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing output. The plaintiffs failed to present concrete evidence or detailed comparisons supporting their claim that the outputs of the LLaMA models resembled their works in a way that constitutes infringement. Without such evidence, the court found no basis to uphold the plaintiffs’ claims of copyright infringement based on the model's outputs.The court dismissed all claims at issue in the motion to dismiss with leave to amend only the copyright-related claims.
法院強調，要在著作權侵害訴訟中佐證被告成立侵害之立論基礎為，證明原告著作與主張侵害的輸出成品（圖像）具實質近似性；原告等未能提出具體證據或足以支持其主張詳細之對比，以證LLaMA模型生成品與其等著作近似而構成侵害。無前開證據，尚不足使法院基於模型輸出品得有被告侵害原告著作權之心證，是法院僅留下得加以修正與著作權相關訴訟，其於之訴均駁回。

Similarly, in Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., the plaintiffs commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other professional artists, alleging that Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney used their copyrighted artworks without permission to train an artificial intelligence model known as Stable Diffusion. The plaintiffs claimed their works were included in the five billion images taken from the internet by Large-Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network (LAION), which were used as training data for the AI model.
同樣地，於Anderson v. Stability AI Ltd.訴訟中，原告等作為自身與其他職業藝人的代表提起集體訴訟，主張Stability AI, DeviantArt, 與Midjourney 未得其等同意利用其等著作來訓練一款名為Stable Diffusion之人工智能模型。原告等主張包括有50億張圖像被像Open Network這種大型人工智能從網路上攫取，而被攫取的圖像是用來作為人工智能模型的資料。
As a result, the AI-generated images created by Stable Diffusion are allegedly derivatives of the training, infringing on plaintiffs’ copyrights. Following the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court’s decision focused on the requirement for the plaintiffs to allege that the AI-generated works are substantially similar to their copyrighted works. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege substantial similarity.
因此，由人工智能Stable Diffusion創作生成的圖像，係從原生創作訓練衍生而來侵害原告等之著作。被告答辯請求法院駁回原告之訴，法院聚焦原告等主張人工智能生成著作與其等著作實質近似否，隨後法院以原告等未能證明實質近似而駁回原告等之訴。

Specifically, the court highlighted:
法院特別敘明之理由如下：
The plaintiffs admitted that the output images from the Stable Diffusion model are unlikely to closely match any specific image in the training data, which weakens their claim of substantial similarity.
For a copyright infringement claim to proceed, the plaintiffs must provide detailed facts showing how the AI-generated images are substantially similar to their original works.
原告承認Stable Diffusion模型輸出圖像不可能與訓練資料的特定圖像合致，這大大弱化他們為實質近似的主張。為說服法院，原告須提出更具細節之事實以證明人工智能生成圖像與其等原創著作具實質近似性。