Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but why would one share wedding photos using an open license like Creative Commons?
In this case, because Flickr used to wave hosting fees for people who chose a Creative Commons license.
[dead]
Megaface
71–80 of 114 posts
Re: Megaface
#72It strikes me as sad that people's photos have been taken a used to train a technology for a corporate profit. People just wanted to share their wedding photos.
Replace "corporate profit" with "social good", which is what it generally comes from, and then is it still sad? You seem to imply there's something wrong with corporate profit. We as society want and encourage corporate profit because we want the social good that corporations provide and the profit incentivizes them to do it. Profit is a rough measure of how much good they do for people. Profit is like salary for inv…
Corporate profit does not always lead to social good. There are lots of cases, especially when companies scale significantly and over a long enough period of time, where the profit motive leads to a decline in social good which is often seen in the form of negative externalities.
> Profit is a rough measure of how much good they do for people.
While this is true to a certain degree in many situations it does not capture the distribution of the “good” across people (is “good” given to 100 people equivalent to 100x that “good” enjoyed by one person?) and it does not take into account negative externalities.
I’m not saying all profit is bad but I also don’t think, in the current system we have, that profit in and of itself is inherently good. Sometimes profit and social good are aligned and sometimes they are not.
Re: Megaface
#73It strikes me as sad that people's photos have been taken a used to train a technology for a corporate profit. People just wanted to share their wedding photos.
Replace "corporate profit" with "social good", which is what it generally comes from, and then is it still sad? You seem to imply there's something wrong with corporate profit. We as society want and encourage corporate profit because we want the social good that corporations provide and the profit incentivizes them to do it. Profit is a rough measure of how much good they do for people. Profit is like salary for inv…
Ah yes, the "social good" that is literally destroying our planet.
Re: Megaface
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a painting signed with a [facsimile] signature of Dali That's not what's happening here though. If you look at the original tweet ( https://twitter.com/LaurynIpsum/status/1599953586699767808 ) it seems that the complaint is about the "mangled remains of an artist’s signature". I don't see any examples where it's actually copying the signature of a specific artist. (Please do share an example of that if there is one…
I do respect artist's concerns. I have a hard time getting this one though. The ai learned that humans usually put squiggly lines in the corners, and it does, too. What is wrong with this?
It's reasoning based on a false assumption. If you start from the assumption that AI imagery is based on specific source images, which had signatures, then it can make sense to assume that the squiggly lines in the corner are evidence that it copied-and-mangled some such specific pictures.
That's not what it did, of course. But if you start from the assumption...
Re: Megaface
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is apples and oranges. SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use ): they do not distribute (ie copy ) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so the license of the original images is completely irrelevant. (Details like 'signatures' are also irrelevant: if I write a style parody of Willia…
Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. The issue is that there is clearly copyrighted works in the model that living artists have not consented to being in the model. > SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use they do not distribute (ie copy) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so…
> If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? It's almost like they know they are copying digital artists works without their explicit consent. This wouldn't be an issue if they only used images in the public domain.
It might also be because there's a huge backlash against the concept of stable diffusion in certain circles. Whether or not that backlash matches the legalities, or if their logic is sound at all, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Re: Megaface
#76Re: Megaface
#77What's going to happen when (not if) it becomes cheap and simple to mock up your own head and you "present" that in multiple locations, simultaneously ? It's interesting to think about how these systems (and their human operators) will react when their system recognizes, with certainty, that X is in two places (or 15) at once ... ... or if X is recorded somewhere (Zurich) and then two hours later at an impossible dis…
[deleted]
Re: Megaface
#78That's interesting. If someone creates work A and doesn't allow commercial use, but you create your work B derived from A and you publish it without commercial use restriction then somebody uses your work B commercially, were the conditions that creator of A set violated? And if so, by whom?
Does it depend on how transformative was your work B?
Re: Megaface
#79[dead]
Re: Megaface
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, no, only if you’re under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. They can rule against you as much as they like, but it’s not enforceable outside of the EU or a jurisdiction that chooses to enforce EU judgements.
> Well, no, only if you’re under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. That is an awfully naïve argument my friend. If it were that simple then there would, for example, be no need for a 68 page document entitled "The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Enforceability in U.S. Courts of Orders and Judgments Entered under GDPR" [1]. Allow me to quote from the Conclusion on page 68: "As the Commentary shows, the enforceabi…
It's not about jurisdiction in which the defendant is based, of course, but rather in jurisdiction where it has presence.
If foreign laws were enforceable against actors who never operated in those other countries, we'd have to enforce Saudi laws against atheism and Russian laws against "gay propaganda".