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

391–400 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#391

Post by visarga »

dmitriid wrote: post #238
headsoup wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me how those are 'ideas?' I imagine there are plenty of people that prefer Autotune voices for some reason too. Doesn't mean everyone needs to agree that it's good in itself or for artists.

Whether we like it or not, technology will always make it worse for some people. And it's not a new phenomenon. The printing press made scribes nearly obsolete, cars led to a mass slaughter of horses (and all related professions), and so on wherever you look. Invention of photography nearly killed whole genres of art (and gave rise to impressionism, abstractionism etc.) Unfortunately, we can only judge the outcome of…

I don't think cars led to a mass slaughter of horses. What happened was that fewer horses were bred and raised. Cars were expensive at first.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#392

Post by [deleted] »

realusername wrote: post #160
IncRnd wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go to stablediffusionweb.com and enter "a person like biden" into the box. You will see a picture exactly like President Biden. That picture will have been derived from the trained images of Joe Biden. That cannot be in dispute.

Just because it generates you an image like Biden still does not make it a derivative either. You can draw Biden yourself if you're talented and it's not considered a derivative of anything.

[deleted]

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#393

Post by limitedsupply »

jimnotgym wrote: post #128
limitedsupply wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So what % does?

Not a lawyer, but practically speaking copyright is lost when an item ceases to “exist” itself and can’t be restored. If you cut a painting in half - it’s absolutely still a copyrighted item. If you atomize it and don’t have technology to restore it, then copyright is meaningless. What item exactly is copyrighted?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#394

Post by 93po »

TheDong wrote: post #231
Last5Digits wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This surely can't be the case, right? If it was, then what's stopping me from taking any possible byte sequence and applying my copyright to it? I could always show that there exists some function f that produces said byte sequence when applied to my copyrighted material. Can I sue Microsoft because the entire Windows 11 codebase is just one "rote mathematical transformation" away from the essay I wrote in elementary…

The law doesn't care about technical tricks. It cares about how you got the bytes and what humans think of them. Sure, the windows 11 codebase is in pi somewhere if you go far enough. Sure, pi is a non-copyrightable fact of nature. That doesn't mean the windows codebase is _actually_ in pi legally, just that it technically is. The law does not care about weird gotchas like you describe. I recommended reading this to…

I find this hard to believe. If I took the famous pointillism painting "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (the one-color-per-dot painting of a park) and I rearranged every color point based on an algorithm to create something that looks nothing like the original (and likely just looks like a jumbled mess), surely the copyright on the existing painting (which I doubt exists anymore) wouldn't prevent me from copyrighting my "new" work.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#395

Post by williamcotton »

codeonline wrote: post #386
williamcotton wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a key difference. A compression algorithm is made to be reversible. The point of compressing an MP3 is to be able to decompress as much of the original audio signal as possible. Stable Diffusion is not made to decompress the original and actually has no direct mechanism for decompressing any originals. The originals are not present. The only thing present is an embedding of key components of the original in a…

Lossy compression isn't reversible but presumably the content when compressed tjis way is still covered by copyright.

Pedantically, yes, lossy compression is not 100 percent reversible. Practically, the usefulness of compression is that it does return the original content with as little loss as possible… so lossy compression is mostly reversible.

All of my other points remain unchanged by this pedantry.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#396

Post by IncRnd »

williamcotton wrote: post #354
IncRnd wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go to stablediffusionweb.com and enter "a person like biden" into the box. You will see a picture exactly like President Biden. That picture will have been derived from the trained images of Joe Biden. That cannot be in dispute.

You've made some errors in reasoning. First, there is a legal definition of a "derivative work" and there is an artistic notion of a "derivative work". If the two of us both draw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, artistically we have both derived the drawing based on the original statue. However, neither of these drawings in relation to the original sculpture nor the other drawing is legally considered a derivative…

I can draw Biden, yes, but SD can only draw Biden by deriving it's output from the images on which it was trained. This is a simple tautology, because SD cannot draw Biden without having been trained on that data.

SD both creates derivative works and also sometimes creates pixel level copies from portions of the trained data.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#397

Post by smusamashah »

Aerroon wrote: post #375
smusamashah wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think stable Diffusion can reproduce any single image its trained on, not matter what prompts you use. It does have Mona lisa because of over fitting. But that's because there is too much Mona lisa on internet. These artist taking part in suit won't be able to recreat any of their work.

I think there's a chance they might be able to recreate some simpler work if they make the prompts specific enough. When you set up a prompt you're essentially telling the system what you want it to generate - if you prompt it with enough specificity you might be able to just recreate the image you had. Kind of like recreating your image one object at a time. It might not be exact, but close enough.

People have tried, unless the thing you want to recreat has been seen by it a lot (over trained) you won't get the same image. You don't have that much fine grained control via text only.

Best you can do is to mask and keep inpainting the area that looks different until it doesn't.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#398

Post by zowie_vd »

huggingrear wrote: post #390
zowie_vd wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, those are only two works in a very large body of works of an artist that seems to work almost entirely from imagination, which already counters the claim that this is a very common way of working, since even this artist would almost never work like that. Secondly, putting strangely much effort into a comment on Hacker News, I actually looked up the source frame of one of these: https://youtu.be/K6hOvyz6…

>that seems to work almost entirely from imagination I very much doubt that. >Secondly, putting strangely much effort into a comment on Hacker News Note sure what you are implying here, could you elaborate ? The reason I know about these images is because they've been posted, alongside many other similar examples, in discussions regarding AI art. >I know this because there are too many mistakes with regards to propor…

> I very much doubt that.

You can see his actual workflow on his YouTube channel. He shows his painting process there but doesn't show his sketching process, but I hope that you believe that people are able to draw from imagination at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_ZLBKj_UlY

> Note sure what you are implying here, could you elaborate?

I just meant I was probably putting to much effort into an online discussion.

> I have no doubt that he started painting these over the reference photos, and then used the 'warp tool' in his painting program of choice to alter the proportions, a very common technique.

It's simply not a common technique at all. I'm not sure why you're making these statements because it feels like your knowledge of how illustrators work is extremely limited. I've heard of people photobashing -- which is when artists combine photo manipulation and digital painting to more easily produce realistic artworks. It's got mixed opinions about it and many consider it cheating but within the field of concept art it's common because it's quick and easy. However, there's huge amounts of people who can just draw and paint from sight or imagination. There's the hyperrealists who often act as a human photocopier, but artists who do stylized art of any kind are just people who can draw from imagination. I'm not sure why that's something you "very much doubt" to be quite honest. Just looking on YouTube for things like art timelapses, you can find huge amounts of people who draw entirely from imagination. Take Kim Jung Gi as a somewhat well known example. That guy was famous amongst illustrators for drawing complicated scenes directly in pen without any sketches. But there's really plenty of people that can do these things.

You seem to be under the impression that the average artist uses every shortcut available to get a good result, but that is simply not true. Most artists I know refuse to do anything like photobashing because they consider it cheating and because it isn't how they want to work, nevermind directly drawing on top of things. Drawing from sight isn't uncommon as a way to study art, so in case you're wondering why Sam Yang would be able to reproduce the frame so closely, it's because that's how artists study painting.

> Have you ever used programs like Photoshop, Krita et al

Yes, very often. The thing is: Just because it's possible does not mean it actually happens.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#399

Post by codeflo »

Aerroon wrote: post #385
codeflo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be under the impression that SD can only generate original art. However, it will literally recreate existing paintings for you if you just prompt it with the title. Identical composition and everything.

Photoshop can also recreate existing paintings if you just "prompt it with the correct input", no?

So you're saying "if I put the made-up straw man argument that I intend to knock down in quotation marks, it's less obvious that it's not actually what the other person wrote"?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#400

Post by williamcotton »

IncRnd wrote: post #396
williamcotton wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made some errors in reasoning. First, there is a legal definition of a "derivative work" and there is an artistic notion of a "derivative work". If the two of us both draw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, artistically we have both derived the drawing based on the original statue. However, neither of these drawings in relation to the original sculpture nor the other drawing is legally considered a derivative…

I can draw Biden, yes, but SD can only draw Biden by deriving it's output from the images on which it was trained. This is a simple tautology, because SD cannot draw Biden without having been trained on that data. SD both creates derivative works and also sometimes creates pixel level copies from portions of the trained data.

Yes, and we are now using the artistic definition of “derived” and not the legal definition.

You cannot copyright “any image that resembles Joe Biden”.

Post reply on HN