Sarah Andersen Saw the Monster Forming in 2022. She Wasn't Wrong.

On December 31, 2022, cartoonist Sarah Andersen published an op-ed in The New York Times that would become one of the most cited pieces in the fight for artist rights. The essay was titled "The Alt-Right Manipulated My Comic. Then A.I. Claimed It." In it, she described what happened when she typed her own name into Stable Diffusion and watched the machine spit out images in her style. Images she never made. Characters she never drew. Work that looked like hers but wasn't.

Her assessment: "I see a monster forming."

The Quote, In Full Context

Sarah Andersen is the creator of "Sarah's Scribbles," a comic series read by tens of millions. She's not a critic on the sidelines. She's a working artist whose livelihood depends on the recognizability of her voice. When AI scraped her work and made it replicable on demand, she didn't stay quiet. She wrote. She named the problem. And then she did something else.

On January 13, 2023, just two weeks after the op-ed published, Andersen became one of the lead plaintiffs in Andersen v. Stability AI, a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt. The case alleged that these companies trained their models on billions of images scraped from the internet, including the copyrighted work of artists who never consented. It's one of the most significant legal challenges to generative AI in the art world.

What's Changed Since 2022

Three and a half years later, the monster she saw forming is no longer forming. It's here. AI image generators are faster, more accessible, and more integrated into platforms than they were when Andersen first wrote that line. But so is the resistance.

The lawsuit survived. In August 2025, U.S. District Judge William Orrick denied Stability AI's motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims. The case is now in discovery, with a trial scheduled for September 2026. A third amended complaint was filed in February, and the legal ground has shifted in ways no one could have predicted when Andersen first went public.

And beyond the courtroom, something else happened. Artists started organizing. Communities like this one formed. The phrase "human made" became more than a preference. It became a stance.

Why This Matters to You

Andersen didn't just describe a problem. She named it early, clearly, and in a venue where millions would read it. That takes courage. It also takes a kind of clarity that only comes from lived experience. She knew what it felt like to see her work used without permission. She knew what it meant when a machine could replicate her voice faster than she could draw.

Her words in 2022 gave language to a feeling that thousands of artists were just starting to have. And her lawsuit gave them a legal front to watch.

The monster she saw forming? It's still here. But so are we.

Your Turn

What's the line from a creator, artist, or writer that crystallized your own stance on AI in art? Drop it in the comments. Let's build a library of the words that mattered.

5 Comments

Sort by:

Nick SHuman-Made ArtStaffMay 17, 2026

"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable — but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula K. Le Guin

For me, this defines the ethos of human solidarity in arts.

If humans prioritize supporting human creators and human-made art, humans and human made art will ultimately prevail.

As humans need to take actions like Sarah did. We need to support the human artists and human made art.

Scott WurzelHuman-Made ArtTop ContributorMay 17, 2026

I've been a huge fan of Sarah for a long time, but somehow missed that she was in this fight!

I can't remember the author I saw who said it, but the quote was "If you didn't take the time to write it, I'm not taking the time to read it." It sounds very dismissive and a bit luddite at first, but there is a deep truth in it. For me, I have little interest in AI art, not because it's bad (sometimes it isn't) but because it lacks motivation.

When I look at any human-made art, I wonder at details. "Why was this placed here and not there? Look at how the artist used light to trick you. Oh! I found a fun easter egg hidden". AI art has none of that. It can be beautiful, but so can the output from an oscilloscope. Art is a two-sided dialog between an artist and another human. If you have nothing to say, you aren't making art.

Emendabili May 17, 2026

Translated from Português

@Marcos Emendabili

It's simple: the author of the works made by AI is the AI; the fact that humans programmed the AI to create an image doesn't make them the authors, because the final execution was conceived by the AI, and a work reflects the AI's thinking and the artist's skill without intermediaries.

KBPetrilloHuman-Made ArtTop ContributorMay 17, 2026

Sarah Andersen"s work is being compromised, because Ai companies have created work that has her creative signature. It is not hers. It has created more supply and less demand for her work. It hurts her economically and reputation wise. The only way this happened is because Ai companies, without her permission or compensation, took her work and fed it into a computer to generate similar work.

Perhaps this will help. Say you have a piece of art that you created and was asking for 1000$ for it. Its one of a kind and you spent months creating it. Its a picture of 3 dogs, a Harley Davidson and a out door cooking grill with a full moon rising over a placid pond.

You go to a art festival and load it up with your work and set up your booth, making that painting I just described, as the center piece.

Your neighboring booth, has prints in many different styles, some on canvas, some framed etc. Different styles. He has one large one- a framed canvas that is just like yours- in the same style but it only has 2 dogs, and the moon is a crescent. He is selling it for 50$.

He just started out creating Ai generated art, you have been working at your craft for 3 decades. How does that make you feel.

I don't know much about how they cheat artsts, but I have seen people sell prints from artists without permission. They take pictures of other people's art and make prints to sell cheap.

How would you feel if that was happening to your art? I don't let people take pictures of my work for that reason. I did see someone at a show do that. I spoke to her. I let it go, as she was a young artist. But I won't let it go anymore. I worked hard to do what I do. All artists do.

Patents help all types of people to secure their intellectual and creative property. There are no laws as yet to protect us from Ai criminals.

KBPetrilloHuman-Made ArtTop ContributorMay 17, 2026

I am starting to see the monster. This article has shed light on why Human Made is so important.

I have read about positive things about Ai. But none that allow stealing creative work, or advocate copyright infringement. I feel like I am stuck between Brave New World and Animal Farm. Wondering if authorities will listen to the critiques of Ai concerning creative property. I have my work stolen physically and on line. Its not right. I fear that those who run some of the Ai companies, are problematic. Then there are countries, who don't follow laws we may create. Black market theft of intellectual and creative property, really cost corporations a lot.

I am interested in being part of the solution. How did we manage, during the time of bootlegged tapes of music from festivals, China"s theft of electronic and creative patents which glutted the market with music and video tapes, and cheap electronics? And if their are laws, how do we get the money to take big corporations to court to inforce them. The artists who are banning together are a good start. Perhaps there can be a class action law suit. So many Ai corporations and companies, have a shady reputation, as they seem to be in bed with political folk who are criminals.

Something needs to be done.

Thanks for the article. I never really understood, what was going on. Its getting clearer.