2026年06月六级第3套仔细阅读 Passage 1 原文翻译及答案解析

Three artists have brought a lawsuit against Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney, alleging that the text-to-image AI tools have infringed the rights of thousands of artists.

三位艺术家对 Stability AI、DeviantArt 和 Midjourney 提起诉讼，指控这些文本生成图像的 AI 工具侵犯了成千上万名艺术家的权利。

The lawsuit claims that the Stable Diffusion tool used by Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney was trained on billions of copyrighted images downloaded from the internet and used by the companies "without compensation or consent from the artists."

该诉讼声称，Stability AI、DeviantArt 和 Midjourney 所使用的 Stable Diffusion 工具，是在从互联网下载的数十亿张受版权保护的图像上训练的，而这些公司使用这些图像'既未向艺术家支付报酬，也未取得其同意'。

The artists are represented by The Joseph Saveri Law Firm and Matthew Butterick.

这些艺术家由 Joseph Saveri 律师事务所和 Matthew Butterick 代理。

"If Stable Diffusion and similar products are allowed to continue to operate as they do now, the foreseeable result is they will replace the very artists whose stolen works power these AI products with whom they are competing," the law firm wrote in a press release. "AI image products are not just an infringement of artists' rights; they will eliminate 'artist' as a viable career path. In addition to obtaining compensation for the wrongful conduct, this lawsuit seeks to prevent that outcome and ensure these products follow the same rules as any other new technology that involves the use of massive amounts of intellectual property. If streaming music can be accomplished within the law, so can AI products."

'如果允许 Stable Diffusion 及类似产品继续像现在这样运作，可预见的结果就是：它们将取代那些作品被窃取、用来驱动这些 AI 产品的艺术家本身，而这些艺术家正是它们的竞争对手，'该律师事务所在一份新闻稿中写道。'AI 图像产品不仅仅是对艺术家权利的侵犯，它们还会让“艺术家”这一可行的职业道路彻底消失。除了为这一不当行为寻求赔偿，本诉讼还力图阻止这一结果，并确保这些产品遵守与任何其他涉及大量使用知识产权的新技术相同的规则。如果流媒体音乐能够在法律框架内实现，AI 产品也同样可以。'

Since text-to-image generators have increased in popularity in the past year, many artists have been vocalizing their opposition to AI art after seeing their own distorted signatures appear in AI art and finding out that their work was used to train the tools without their permission.

自过去一年文本生成图像的工具日益流行以来，许多艺术家在看到自己被扭曲的签名出现在 AI 艺术作品中、并发现自己的作品未经许可就被用于训练这些工具后，纷纷公开表达对 AI 艺术的反对。

Not only are many artists furious at the possible copyright violations of AI art, but they have also been frustrated by how AI tools are able to sidestep the labor and art processes they are required to go through. As a result, many artists have been trying to ban AI art from art-sharing platforms.

许多艺术家不仅对 AI 艺术可能存在的版权侵犯行为感到愤怒，还对 AI 工具能够绕过他们必须经历的劳动与创作过程感到沮丧。因此，许多艺术家一直试图将 AI 艺术从艺术分享平台上封禁。

As AI innovation continues at a rapid speed, it seems that artists and lawmakers are trying to put a brake on further developments before it's too late.

随着 AI 创新以飞快的速度持续推进，艺术家和立法者似乎正试图在为时已晚之前，为进一步的发展踩下刹车。

Many tech enthusiasts are still rallying around the promise of AI tools to create detailed images cheaply and quickly—anonymous tech supporters have already published a response to Butterick and Joseph Saveri's lawsuit on a website, using the "fair use" clause as the basis for why copyrighted images could be used by the tool.

许多科技爱好者仍在拥护 AI 工具廉价而快速地生成精细图像的前景——一些匿名的科技支持者已经在某网站上发布了对 Butterick 和 Joseph Saveri 诉讼的回应，以'合理使用'条款作为该工具能够使用受版权保护图像的依据。

Fair use, a legal doctrine that allows for a limited usage of copyrighted materials without permission by the original creators for purposes such as teaching and news sharing, is what a lot of generative model creators claim that their training data is covered by. However, since fair use applies differently to each case, it's hard to make a blanket statement about all works in a dataset as being applicable.

'合理使用'是一项法律原则，允许在未经原创作者许可的情况下，出于教学、新闻分享等目的对受版权保护的材料进行有限度的使用；许多生成式模型的开发者声称，他们的训练数据正受该原则保护。然而，由于'合理使用'在每个案件中的适用情况各不相同，很难笼统地断言一个数据集中的所有作品都适用这一原则。