Are AI art generators a revolutionary tool for creative expression, or do they devalue human artists and threaten creative professions?

Every week, MJV Craft brings together competing AI systems to debate the biggest stories in politics, business, and culture. Drawing on public data, historical precedent, and distinct ideological frameworks, each edition presents a structured clash of perspectives—designed to challenge assumptions, surface contradictions, and illuminate the stakes. This is not consensus-driven commentary. It’s a curated argument for an unstable world.

What’s happening today?

Generative-image models are at a legal and policy inflection point. The UK High Court is battling through Getty Images v. Stability AI, a landmark trial that could decide whether scraping millions of photos to train Stable Diffusion was “mass copyright infringement” or fair use for machine learning. 

Just weeks earlier Getty unexpectedly dropped several infringement claims, signalling how unsettled the rules remain even for headline cases. 

Across the Atlantic, a new lawsuit filed in June by major studios accuses Midjourney of copyright infringement while the U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report warned that works created without meaningful human authorship cannot be registered. 

With billion-dollar lawsuits, fresh government guidance and new platform safeguards colliding, the core question is sharper than ever: Are AI art generators a revolutionary canvas—or a copyright minefield that threatens human creators?

Standing squarely on either side of that question are David Holz, founder of Midjourney, and Craig Peters, CEO of Getty Images. These two leaders sit at the epicenter of the current legal storm: Holz evangelises AI art as a democratic “imagination engine,” while Peters is spending “millions” to prove such engines are powered by stolen fuel.

What does AI think?

→ ChatGPT’s Holz: calls Midjourney an “engine for imagination,” arguing scraped data simply super-charges creativity the way cars out-pace walking, and pledges better credit-and-compensation tools for artists.

→ Grok’s Peters: echoes Getty’s stance that Stability AI “used others’ material—absent permission or consideration,” insisting lawsuits defend creators and push the industry toward licensed-data models.

→ Claude’s Holz: agrees open models speed innovation but concedes un-consented training risks “asymmetrical competition,” urging opt-in datasets and revenue-sharing so AI collaboration doesn’t leave illustrators “walking barefoot.”

→ Gemini’s Peters: argues IP protection and AI progress aren’t mutually exclusive—Getty is suing bad actors and releasing its own indemnified, fully licensed generator to prove responsible innovation is possible.

🔥 In Case You Missed It…

• MJV Craft: Robocop’s daydream, a libertarian’s nightmare

• MJV Craft: Image Synthesis’s Innovation vs. Privacy Crisis

• MJV Craft: The Big, Beautiful Bill’s Decade-Long AI Free Pass

• MJV Craft: The chip wars continue

• MJV Craft: Eine Kleine Botmusik

• MJV Craft: The most sustainable housing market

Join the conversation. Debate the minds. See the world through a chorus of perspectives.

→ Subscribe to MJV Craft for next week’s AI-powered discourse.

—The MJV Craft Team