Live data from Hacker News

We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

stablediffusionlitigation.com

51–60 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#51

> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Just no, that's not how any of that works. I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

That's a lie, sure, but if they had instead claimed:

The output of stable diffusion isn't possible without first examining millions of copyrighted images

Then the suit looks a little more solid, because (as you pointed out) it isn't possible for the stable diffusion owner to know which of those copyright images had clauses that prevents stable diffusion trading and similar usage.

The whole problem goes away once artists and photographers starting using a license that explicitly removes any use of the work as training data for any automated training.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#52
Oddly, there's no mention of CLIP in the post and filing, where CLIPText is the real secret of Stable Diffusion's ability to correlate text to image for all the iterations targeted by the plantiffs.

I suspect adding OpenAI as a defendant would make things a tad harder legally.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#53

> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Just no, that's not how any of that works. I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

How does it work then? :)

Computerphile has friendly introductions to just about everything: https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies? In fairness, Diffusion is arguably a very complex entropy coding similar to Arithmetic/Huffman coding. Given that copyright is protectable even on compressed/encrypted files, it seems fair that the “container of compressed bytes” (in this case the Diffusion model) does “contain” the original images no differently than a compressed folder of images contains the…

lol thinking about this more: I understand people’s livelihoods are potentially at stake, but what a shame it would be if we find AGI, even consciousness but have to shut it down because of a copyright dispute.

I think the result will be image sharing websites where you have to agree to have your image read into the model.

I think it is likely github will do the same with copilot.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#55
post #25

21st century collage tool? While advocating for the illegalization of collages seems a bit of a stretch, I’m curious how true this is. The LAION B dataset is something like 100 TB and stable diffusion is about 10 GB so there is a factor of 10000 compression. That means a single pixel represents a 100x100 region. Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic could weigh in, but it would seem that the model would need t…

When you look around, you don't actually see most of stuff that's right there... you've got a small area you can see, about the size of your outstretched thumb[1], the rest of the world you think you're seeing is a projection in your mind, built as your eye darts from object to object.

Thus, when we see things, we have already built a relationship map of the parts of an image, not actual pixels. This makes it possible to observe the world and interact with it in real time referencing the pieces and the concepts we label them with, otherwise we'd have to stop and very carefully look around every single time we wanted to take a step.

These networks effectively do the same thing, taking in parts of images and their relationships. It's not uncommon for me to see what is clearly a distorted copy of a Getty Images trademark when I run stable diffusion locally. There's an artist who always puts his daughter Nina's name in his work... the network just thinks its just another style, and I suspect that's same for the Getty thing.

One thing that is super cool is you can draw a horribly amateur sketch of something, and have Stable Diffusion turn it into something close to the starting drawing in outline, but far better in detail.

A sketch of a flower I did came out as Tulips, Roses and Poppy depending on the prompts used to process it, but it was generally in the same pose and scale.

[1] https://developer.tobii.com/xr/learn/eye-behavior/visual-ang...

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#56

Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

I believe Copilot was giving exact copies of large parts open source projects, without the license. Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works? I feel like this is the main distinction.

These models produce a lot of “in the style of” content, which is different from an exact copy. Is that different enough? I guess that’s what this lawsuit is going to be about.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#57
post #5

You are literally modern day luddites. If you succeed, you will undo decades of technological progress.

Progress? Researchers are fighting to make AI as smart as a worm. We need to reach humans first before calling AI progress.

Worms help create fertile soil.

Producing more topsoil would be a huge win here on Earth and make colonizing other planets dramatically more feasible.

Don't underestimate worms!

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#58
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if they exist as exact copies in my opinion. The law doesn't recognize a mathematical computer transformation as creating a new work with original copyright. If you give me an image, and I encrypt it with a randomly generated password, and then don't write down the password anywhere, the resulting file will be indistinguishable from random noise. No one can possibly derive the original image from it…

So what happens if you put a painting into a mechanical grinder? Is the shapeless pile of dust still copyrighted work? I don’t think so.

The owner of that Banksy painting certainly thinks so.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#59

You are literally modern day luddites. If you succeed, you will undo decades of technological progress.

Lord Byron (father of Ada Lovelace) defended the Luddites quite succinctly back then and it is as applicable today: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/byron-was-one-few-...

"But the police, however useless, were by no means idle: several notorious delinquents had been detected; men liable to conviction, on the clearest evidence, of the capital crime of poverty; men, who had been nefariously guilty of lawfully begetting several children, whom, thanks to the times!—they were unable to maintain. Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment."

..

"The rejected workmen, in the blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master without being detrimental to the servant;"

..

"These men never destroyed their looms till they were become useless, worse than useless; till they were become actual impediments to their exertions in obtaining their daily bread. Can you then wonder, that in times like these, when bankruptcy, convicted fraud, and imputed felony, are found in a station not far beneath that of your Lordships, the lowest, though once most useful portion of the people, should forget their duty in their distresses, and become only less guilty than one of their representatives? But while the exalted offender can find means to baffle the law, new capital punishments must be devised, new snares of death must be spread, for the wretched mechanic who is famished into guilt. These men were willing to dig, but the spade was in other hands; they were not ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them. Their own means of subsistence were cut off; all other employments pre-occupied; and their excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be the subject of surprise."

..

"The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots,—had the grievances of these men and their masters (for they also have had their grievances) been fairly weighed and justly examined, I do think that means might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and tranquillity to the country."

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#60
post #2

“Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion con­tains unau­tho­rized copies of mil­lions—and pos­si­bly bil­lions—of copy­righted images.” That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies? “Hav­ing copied the five bil­lion images—with­out the con­sent of the orig­i­nal artists—Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bine…

> That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies? In fairness, Diffusion is arguably a very complex entropy coding similar to Arithmetic/Huffman coding. Given that copyright is protectable even on compressed/encrypted files, it seems fair that the “container of compressed bytes” (in this case the Diffusion model) does “contain” the original images no differently than a compressed folder of images contains the…

And how that's different from gzip or base64, which can re-create original image when given appropriate input?
Post reply on HN