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

91–100 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#91

Post by [deleted] »

ipsum2 wrote: post #71
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #13

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

It's only hypocrisy if you think that HN is made up of a single person commenting under multiple accounts and not a diverse group of people with varying opinions.

[deleted]

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#92

Post by NhanH »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #13

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

At the very least, Stable Diffusion is much different than Copilot in term of the model license. I, you, and all the artists have irrevocable access to the model (in practical term, I'm not interested in discussion whether they can somehow legal strong arms people from using the model).

We only have mere limited access to Copilot. And it is impractical for almost anyone else on earth to train a similar model, while we are 100% sure it is possible to have a dataset or to redo the training of SD. Just from pure utilitarian point of view, it's much easier to support fighting against Copilot than SD

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#93

Post by chii »

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…

> In fairness, Diffusion is arguably a very complex entropy coding similar to Arithmetic/Huffman coding.

so, digits of pi anyone?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#95

Post by synu »

visarga wrote: post #88
synu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will be interesting to see how they legally define the moment where compression stops being compression and starts being an original work.

If I train on one image I can get it right back out. Even two, maybe even a thousand? Not sure what the line would be where it becomes ok vs not but there will have to be some answer.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#96

Post by visarga »

anothernewdude wrote: post #80
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's going to be very hard to them to argue against Stable Diffusion and not reach the conclusion that people looking at art are doing exactly what training the AI did. You looked at my art, now I can use copyright against the copies in your brain.

By forcing the AI community to develop technology to avoid replication of training examples they might disclose every bit of human copying as well. What can detect copyright violations in AI can be applied on human works as well.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#97

Post by rep_movsd »

wirrbel wrote: post #81
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.

I dont think anyone can be sued for making a drawing of some photo.

You can claim intellectual property for comic characters etc, but not photos.

YOu could get someone to go get a similar photo taken at the same place, and use tools to enhance it

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#98

Post by chii »

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…

name one qualitative change resulting from quantitative change that did not benefit the world as a whole?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#99

Post by bryanrasmussen »

magnat wrote: post #60
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…

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

well I guess it wouldn't be different, only there aren't any companies zipping up millions of images and then offering people the chance to get those images by putting in the text prompt that recreates them without paying any fees to the artists whose images were used.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#100

Post by mbgerring »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #27

Why do we keep posting the same arguments over and over with these stories. It's like how humans learn. It contains chunks of copywriter material. What about copilot. Hackers don't respect artists. Yadda yadda. It's boring. I don't know the answer, but after reading the same things over and over I don't know if I trust myself to even have a valid opinion about it.

There’s a pretty easy answer here actually: if you want to include data in a set of training data for an AI system, you need to have (formal, statutory) permission to use it.
Post reply on HN