Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

stablediffusionlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#61

Post by lvs »

TheDong wrote: post #21
dr_dshiv wrote: 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…

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…

[dead]

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#62

Post by eega »

akjetma wrote: post #35
Salgat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that the images aren't stored, but rather an extremely abstract description of the image was used to very slightly adjust a network of millions of nodes in a tiny direction. No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model.

there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.

So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to paint in the style of another artist? I‘m no lawyer, but I‘m pretty sure that is completely legss as long as you don’t claim your paintings ARE from the other artist.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#65

Post by limitedsupply »

andybak wrote: post #45
akjetma wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.

I was with you right up until the final sentence. How did "style" become "work"?

That’s the key question of the lawsuit IMO!

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#66

Post by realusername »

akjetma wrote: post #35
Salgat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that the images aren't stored, but rather an extremely abstract description of the image was used to very slightly adjust a network of millions of nodes in a tiny direction. No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model.

there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.

No that doesn't, that demonstrates that the model has a abstract features and characteristics of this artists stored in the model, not work.

You can't bring back the training images no matter how hard you try.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#67

Post by mirekrusin »

akjetma wrote: post #20
dr_dshiv wrote: 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…

I don't think you have to reproduce an entire original work to demonstrate copyright violation. Think about sampling in hip hop for example. A 2 second sample, distorted, re-pitched, etc. can be grounds for a copyright violation.

Can it? I thought up to 15s you can copy it verbatim without violation.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#68

Post by visarga »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #39
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #28

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.

Didn't yesterday someone proclaim generative models can't destroy anything worth protecting? It was about chatGPT but the principle is the same.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#69

Post by whateveracct »

dr_dshiv wrote: 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…

This feels like the argument of a money launderer.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#70

Post by limitedsupply »

jimnotgym wrote: post #58
limitedsupply wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The painting that has several cuts in about 25% of the surface area? Don’t think that constitutes as a shapeless pile of dust.
Post reply on HN