Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
1–10 of 166 posts
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#2This weekend I've played around in depth with Stable Diffusion with Controlnet, negative prompts, and inpainting.
It didn't take long to convince me that this AI is "learning" art, in some kind of very similar way a Human is.
Controlnet + SD was really mind blowing all around. I understand why artists are depressed now, but people are already training hypermodels, textual inversions, and loras. Who knows what the future will bring ?
My two favorite hyper models are around oil paintings, and cars(for my husband, he is getting an AI car calendar for his birthday, let's see if he figures it out :)
This genie isn't going back into the bottle.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#3Fair use would work if we could find an artist for a given generated picture - but we can't. Generate a picture and there is no artist for it closer than the ones who made the pictures in the training set.
I really hope these lawyers wont mess that up, it's an easy win.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#4"legal earthquake" Why is everyone talking in apocalyptic terms about AI? A new legal framework will have to be constructed around this, just like with any new technology. Copyright holders will get relief or we don't have a legal system that works. Have we lost faith in our system so much that we think we live in a disaster movie?
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#5"legal earthquake" Why is everyone talking in apocalyptic terms about AI? A new legal framework will have to be constructed around this, just like with any new technology. Copyright holders will get relief or we don't have a legal system that works. Have we lost faith in our system so much that we think we live in a disaster movie?
I think it's accurate. The foundations of those models are prior material which might be copyrighted.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#6This weekend I've played around in depth with Stable Diffusion with Controlnet, negative prompts, and inpainting. It didn't take long to convince me that this AI is "learning" art, in some kind of very similar way a Human is. Controlnet + SD was really mind blowing all around. I understand why artists are depressed now, but people are already training hypermodels, textual inversions, and loras. Who knows what the fut…
>This genie isn't going back into the bottle.
I don't think that impacts legal things, however you are correct, AI art can never go away.
If the legal hammer falls on the bad side of this, corporations/people with decent sized assets are unable to use these tools without paying some sort of royalty.
>I understand why artists are depressed now
As someone who isnt an artist, I wish I could sketch something quickly, use controlnet, and have my idea turned into reality in a few seconds. Non artists are basically at the whim of other creators + the randomness of txt2img. Heck, it seems there is something I want changed with nearly every AI art picture, with actual art skills, you could fix these.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#7This is a pretty good summary of the complexity of the issue legally (worth reading the whole thing). The plaintiffs pretty clearly either don’t know how ML works or are deliberately misconstruing the facts. But the real question is how a judge and/or jury will look at this given how tricky the debate is (as evidenced by comments in the many posts about GPT-like models right here on HN).
There are a lot of emotions around this space right now. I’m very curious to see how the legal teams break things down logically and with precedents.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#8Fair use would work if we could find an artist for a given generated picture - but we can't. Generate a picture and there is no artist for it closer than the ones who made the pictures in the training set. I really hope these lawyers wont mess that up, it's an easy win.
I mean, a big problem is that "fair use" is pretty broken already. It's just a really sloppy legal test that ends up bowing to trends, non-expert opinions and utter randomness as much as it does legal rigor.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#9"legal earthquake" Why is everyone talking in apocalyptic terms about AI? A new legal framework will have to be constructed around this, just like with any new technology. Copyright holders will get relief or we don't have a legal system that works. Have we lost faith in our system so much that we think we live in a disaster movie?
[dead]
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#10This is a pretty good summary of the complexity of the issue legally (worth reading the whole thing). The plaintiffs pretty clearly either don’t know how ML works or are deliberately misconstruing the facts. But the real question is how a judge and/or jury will look at this given how tricky the debate is (as evidenced by comments in the many posts about GPT-like models right here on HN). There are a lot of emotions a…
I see why you're saying what you are about the "facts," but I'm not at all convinced that it's so clear-cut that the plaintiffs are all that wrong.
Which is to say, compare these models to e.g. simple image compression. If compressed images can violate, the argument that "this is merely VERY GOOD and VERSATILE image compression" probably has enough legal legs to do something with.