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

81–90 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#81

Post by wirrbel »

TheMiddleMan wrote: post #31

An artist can look at images for reference, and draw something new inspired by them. Why does it matter if a software tool can do this much faster? If the artist makes the image very similar to one of the reference photos, it may be a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if the artist used a pencil or software to create the new work. Current AI image generation does, however, make it easy to unknowingly violate cop…

Iirc it can be a problem copyright wise if I paint from a photo reference because it can infringe the photographers IP.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#82

Post by mbgerring »

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…

No. Humans decided to include artwork that they did not have any right to use as part of a training data set. This is about holding humans accountable for their actions.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#83

Post by anothernewdude »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #28
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…

> 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…

Great. Now the defence shows an artist that can recreate an image. Cool, now people who look at images get copyright suits filed against them for encoding those images in their heads.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#84

Post by manholio »

visarga wrote: post #42
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…

> 90%ish of a single input image Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The article authors say it works as a "collage tool" trying to minimise the composition and layout of the image as unimportant elements. At the same time forgetting that SD is changing textures as well, so it's a collage minus textures and composition? Is the…

But they are not original works, they are wholly derived works of the training data set. Take that data set away and the algorithm is unable to produce a single original pixel.

The fact that the derivation involves millions of works as opposed to a single one is immaterial for the copyright issue.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#85

Post by jimnotgym »

I have a different take.

I don't know how the law on copyright relates to AI. I can't imagine all of the arguements, I don't know the case law. I may have some gut feeling, I may want a certain outcome, but I am a nobody.

I think in a common-law system a court room and a test case is needed to clarify this law.

I am sad that the system for getting this into court is so expensive. I am sad that people involved are being threatened with damages, I don't think that is necessary.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#86

Post by ben_w »

Bancakes wrote: post #5
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #3

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.

Show me one worm that can paint as well as the original DALL•E, let alone v2 or Stable Diffusion.

Show me one worm — or even a hamster — that can drive a car as well as Tesla's Autopilot.

Show me one single non-human animal of any species that can write functioning Python code or CSS from a natural language description of what it should achieve, even if it only gets to GPT-2 level let alone v3 as used in Copilot or v3.5 as used in ChatGPT.

What we have yet to do with a worm is literally upload it's brain, but IIRC that's more because nobody with the money was interested in funding the one person publicly interested in figuring out how to measure synaptic weights in vivo.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#88

Post by visarga »

synu wrote: post #44
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…

You could make the same argument that as long as you are using lossy compression you are unable to infringe on copyright.

That's a huge understatement. 5 billion images to a model of 5GB. 1 byte per image. Let's see if one byte per image would constitute a copyright violation in other fields than neural networks.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#89

Post by mbgerring »

TheMiddleMan wrote: post #31

An artist can look at images for reference, and draw something new inspired by them. Why does it matter if a software tool can do this much faster? If the artist makes the image very similar to one of the reference photos, it may be a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if the artist used a pencil or software to create the new work. Current AI image generation does, however, make it easy to unknowingly violate cop…

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/amp

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#90

Post by lolinder »

vkou wrote: post #72
chrischen wrote: post #22

“It is a par­a­site that, if allowed to pro­lif­er­ate, will make artists extinct.” This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement. Imagine if the medical tricorder (a device from Star Trek that does maybe 99% of what modern doctors do) is suddenly invented today. Doctors could use this argument to defend their livelihoods, bu…

> This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement. No, this is the only fundamentally correct way to view this. Before the existence of the printing press, we didn't need copyright law. Yet all that the printing press did was make transcribing books by hand faster. Quantitative changes enabled by technology are qualitative chan…

Artists do not have an inalienable right to be paid to do art. There are many reasons why you might argue that the tech is harmful, but that it "will make artists extinct" is not a good one.
Post reply on HN