As a result, the court granted the motions to dismiss but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs were instructed to provide more specific allegations that clearly demonstrate how the AI-generated images resemble their copyrighted works.
因此，法院准許駁回之聲請但允許原告有機會去修正其訴狀。原告被指示提出更具體主張以便明確地展示人工智能生成的圖像與有著作權著作有多相似。
Plaintiffs in both Kadrey and Andersen have since amended their complaints, providing more detailed allegations against the AI developers. While neither the Kadrey nor Andersen decisions defined “substantially similar” for purposes of copyright infringement, the Tenth Circuit has stated, in a copyright infringement case not related to AI, that: “Substantial similarity exists when ‘the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's [protectable] expression by taking material of substance and value.’”
Based on the precedents set by Kadrey and Andersen, when alleging copyright infringement by AI, plaintiffs must demonstrate substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the output generated by AI developers’ programs. Based upon these standards, by including examples of these similarities in their complaints, the Plaintiffs in the UMG actions may have successfully alleged copyright infringement claims against the two AI music-generating systems.
繼而原告在Kadrey與Anderson兩案中修改其訴狀，提出更多不利於人工智能開發公司細節的主張；不過實質近似的認定不在Kadrey與Anderson訴訟中得出，反而出現在第10巡迴法院的判決中；該法院於判決中提到，著作權侵害訴訟與人工智能無關；“當被控著作與原告著作是如此近似時，實質近似則存在。藉由關鍵的要素與價值使通常理性之人能斷定被告違法挪用原告可保護的表達”。基於Kadrey與Anderson等前案，當在訴訟中主張人工智能侵害著作權時，原告等必須證明被侵害之著作與人工智能開發程式生成物（生成著作）間具有實質近似性。爰據上揭標準，包括其等於訴訟中闡釋相似性之例證，原告等將於UMG訟案中成功地對兩家人工智能音樂生成系統主張侵害著作權。
The cases commenced by the Plaintiffs in the UMG actions could help to clarify what is required for plaintiffs to successfully allege copyright infringement in the context of AI-generated content. The courts will now need to clarify how to apply this standard and determine what “substantially similar” means when applied in the context of AI-generated content.
這些案件係由原告等在UMG訟案中起始的，這些案件可協助原告等在人工智能生成內容脈絡中成功地釐清主張著作權侵害什麼是必要的，現在法院需要闡明如何適用此標準與決定當適用於AI生成內容的脈絡下“實質近似”的定義為何。