Canadian artist Tim Boucher has stepped forward to challenge what he calls a “gross mischaracterization” of his work in the ongoing court case Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Tim Boucher, known for his innovative use of generative AI in visual art, claims that the lawsuit has unfairly associated his work with fraudulence, causing great harm to his reputation.
Boucher’s artwork, which integrates artificial intelligence to explore new creative possibilities, was referenced in the complaint as an example of AI-generated content that allegedly dilutes the market for original copyrighted works. However, Boucher asserts that these claims are misleading.
“My artwork was wrongfully dragged into the recent court case Bartz et al v. Anthropic PBC. The statements made about me in the class action complaint misrepresent my work and have caused harm to my reputation as a Canadian artist using generative AI to bring my creative visions to life,” Boucher stated in an email.
The complaint, specifically in Paragraphs 51-53, refers to Boucher’s books as illustrative of the proliferation of AI-generated “copycats,” “rip-offs,” and “garbage books” on platforms like Amazon, alleging that these works compete with or dilute the market for the original copyrighted content. However, Boucher counters that his work does not involve any such practices.
“I do not copy or rip-off the books of others. The contents of my books come from my imagination and I use AI tools to realize that vision,” Tim Boucher clarified in his communication to the court. He further noted that his books are not sold on Amazon, contradicting the lawsuit’s claims.
In addition, Boucher emphasized that he has never paid Anthropic for AI services, making his inclusion in the lawsuit’s allegations regarding the company’s profits from unlicensed use of copyrighted material “inappropriate and irrelevant.”
To rectify the situation, Tim Boucher has taken formal steps to address the misrepresentation. He has submitted a request to Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over the case, asking for the court to amend the filing and allow him to clear his name.
Boucher’s request is also supported by a letter sent to the plaintiffs’ legal team, in which he highlights the reputational damage caused by their statements.
“This letter serves as notice that I will send the enclosed document clarifying my position to Judge Alsup via registered mail tomorrow, with a request that it be included publicly in the court’s docket in order to clear my good name,” Boucher wrote.
In his letter to Judge Alsup, Boucher communicated his hope that the court would allow him to publicly respond to the “false and harmful statements” made about him, stressing the importance of correcting the record.
“I believe the references to my work in the complaint are barely relevant to the rest of the case and at the same time illustrate Plaintiffs’ apparent lack of time spent actually reading my work,” Boucher wrote.
He argued that the lawsuit’s claims regarding his books being AI-generated long-form content are factually incorrect, as his works typically contain only two to five thousand words, along with 40 to 100 images.
Boucher also took exception to the complaint’s use of scare quotes around the terms “written” and “write” in relation to his work, which he believes diminishes the real creative and intellectual labor involved in producing his books.
“The books I produce involve a significant amount of original writing, creativity, collaboration, artistic direction, editorial, and curatorial work,” he explained.
Beyond correcting the record, Boucher is seeking to prevent further reputational harm. “Plaintiffs claim to stand for writers. Well, I am a writer and because of Plaintiff’s complaint, a major media outlet deemed me a ‘fraudster,’ an unfounded label that could easily follow me around for the rest of my career. Plaintiff’s lack of care was unnecessary, unjust, and cruel,” Boucher concluded in his letter to the court.
The outcome of Boucher’s request to amend the filing is not yet known, but the artist is determined to ensure that his creative work is not wrongfully implicated in the court case over AI and copyright.
