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

281–290 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#281

Post by jrm4 »

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 is a gross misunderstanding of "copyright?" The model doesn't need to "contain" the images anymore than a Harry Potter knockoff needs to "contain" huge chunks of text from the originals.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#282

Post by chrischen »

streetcat1 wrote: post #253
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…

But this is not correct. The AI exist because it was stole the work of the original artists (and combined them somehow). You argument is correct if the AI could come up with an original work which would compete with an artist. But the AI work is not original.

What exactly is "original" work? Is Fortnite "original" or is it a clone of PUBG? Are all portraits of women just derivatives of The Mona Lisa?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#284

Post by UncleEntity »

cudgy wrote: post #225
dymk wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Did they have a right to use publicly posted images” is up for the courts to decide

Pretty sure that’s already decided. Publicly played movies and music are not available to be used. Why would the same not apply to posted images?

If you post a song on your website and I listen to it am I violating your copyright?

If my parrot recites your song after hearing my alleged infringement, I record its performance and post it on YouTube is that infringement?

Last one, if I use the song from your website to train an song recognition AI is that infringement?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#285

Post by zowie_vd »

Filligree wrote: post #242
AlotOfReading wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very much a 'color of your bits' topic, but I'm not sure why the internal representation matters. It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond. Obviously some representation of the originals exist inside the model+prompt. Why wouldn't that apply to other images in the training sets?

It applies to these specific images because there were thousands and thousands of copies in the training set. That’s not true for newer works.

That's not true. As an example of a more recent copyright-protected work that Stability AI consistently reproduces fairly faithfully, I invite you to try out the prompt "bloodborne box art".

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#286

Post by __rito__ »

chrischen wrote: post #224
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going against a less well-funded company makes a favorable outcome more likely. Further, they only need a precedent - a ruling against SD would also apply to Dall-E.

Makes sense. Does that mean OpenAI could essentially help fund Stability AI’s defense then?

I think they should. A lot of law is about precedent.

AI-focused companies should get together, form a group, and have real experts giving expert testimony under oath.

I also think that the courts will form expert committees consisting of real experts like Bengio, LeCun, etc.

Any grifters should be avoided, but I am not sure if the judges will understand the difference.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#289

Post by ghaff »

jrm4 wrote: post #281
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 is a gross misunderstanding of "copyright?" The model doesn't need to "contain" the images anymore than a Harry Potter knockoff needs to "contain" huge chunks of text from the originals.

It depends. If names are different, character and plot details differ, etc., a book about students at a school for wizards battling great evil may be a not particularly imaginative rip-off and may even invite litigation if it's too close, but I'm guessing it wouldn't win in court. See also The Sword of Shannara and Tolkien. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Shannara

Creators mimic styles and elements of others' works all the time. Unless an ML algorithm crosses some literal copying threshold, I fail to see it as doing anything substantially different from what people routinely do.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#290

Post by [deleted] »

synu wrote: post #262
cf141q5325 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is overstretching it. That would be a checksum that can be parsed by humans and contains artistic value that serves as the basis for claims to copyright. An actual checksum no longer has artistic value in itself and cant reproduce the original work. Which is why this is framed as compression, it implies that fundamentally SD makes copies instead of (re)creating art. Leaving out the issue of recreating fo…

Overfitting seems like a fuzzy area here. I could train a model on one image that could consistently produce an output no human could tell apart from the original. And of course, shades of gray from there. Regarding your edit, what are the chances of a "hash collision" where the hash is two MP4 files for two different movies? Seems wildly astronomical.. impossible even? That's why this hash method is so special, plus…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN