Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#21

Post by fauxpause_ »

shinycode wrote: post #19

In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…

AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint?

Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#22

Post by rvz »

endisneigh wrote: post #16

It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak. If (in the USA) it's found that AI generated images (based on copyrighted materials) are not fair use, then effectively it will be poisonous to use in your (USA-based) company. This will definitely prevent it from being mainstream. That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, t…

> It doesn't really matter if you can't put the AI back in the bottle so to speak.

Exactly. Companies like Getty, Disney and Shutterstock are never tired of collecting money and the easiest target for this is Stable Diffusion, which is already commercializing the model with DreamStudio which includes Getty's images without their permission.

O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com avoided this by partnering with shutterstock to get this permission first before training on their images for DALL-E 2. If O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com was able to do that, then SD has no reason other than taking images without attribution or credit and using them commercially. (Which they have been caught many times)

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#23

Post by hospitalJail »

stuckinhell wrote: post #12
hospitalJail wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

have you tried inpainting ?

Yes.

Just to be clear on my point, if I could sketch something, I could probably have perfect AI art in 10-15 minutes. Without those skills, it takes ~1-2 hours.

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#26

Post by celeritascelery »

roenxi wrote: post #11

I downloaded the Llama model using a torrent. That is, I think, enough of a counterexample to show that lawsuits will not stop this. Raw economics are at play here and the legal system usually loses to economic realities. 1) We just need 1 jurisdiction that allows model training. 2) There is no mechanism to stop model distribution short of banning general purpose computing and the internet. That would cause more harm…

I think copyright is a real world counter example to this kind of argument (that raw economics will override the legal protection). If you are selling anything, you have to respect copyright. So if training on copyrighted images becomes illegal, it doesn’t mean that people won’t be able to create stable diffusion models (they will do it regardless). But it does mean that businesses won’t be able to use them, which removes almost all financial benefits from creating them.

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#27

Post by shagie »

quadcore wrote: post #3

Fair 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 believe that a further restriction of fair use to what is produced by a generative AI would also give a lot of tools for large copyright holders (e.g. Disney) for suing and removing fan art for anything that "is in the style of" or "makes use of the same characters" including uses that would previously be considered beneath their notice and thus not worth their time (the amount the lawyers would cost combined with the difficulty in doing it).

The lawyers won't "mess it up" but rather that the large copyright holders will be able to use this to enforce these restrictions on human generated fan art just as easily as they (and other humans) will be able to enforce it on generative AI.

While it won't be possible to excise the idea of "draw like Disney" from someone's brain, it will be possible to sue the creator to remove the work.

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#29

Post by shinycode »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #21
shinycode wrote: post #19

In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…

AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.

Yes that’s covered by law

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm...

> Le droit moral de l’artiste est «perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible». Il est lié à la personne de l’auteur qui ne peut y renoncer ni le céder à autrui

> The moral right of the artist is "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible". It is linked to the person of the author who can neither renounce it nor transfer it to another person

https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiques/Arts-plastiques/Comm...

> Le code de la propriété intellectuelle entend par contrefaçon tous les actes d'utilisation non autorisée de l'œuvre. En cas de reprise partielle de cette dernière, elle s'apprécie en fonction des ressemblances entre les œuvres. La simple tentative n'est pas punissable. La loi incrimine au titre du délit de contrefaçon : - «toute reproduction, représentation ou diffusion, par quelque moyen que ce soit, d'une œuvre de l'esprit en violation des droits de l'auteur, tels qu'ils sont définis et réglementés par la loi » (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - «le débit [acte de diffusion, notamment par vente, de marchandises contrefaisantes], l'exportation et l'importation des ouvrages "contrefaisants" » (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).

> The Intellectual Property Code defines infringement as all acts of unauthorized use of a work. In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works. The simple attempt is not punishable. The law incriminates under the offence of counterfeiting: - "any reproduction, representation or dissemination, by any means whatsoever, of a work of the mind in violation of the author's rights, as defined and regulated by law" (CPI, art. L. 335-3). - "the debit [act of distribution, notably by sale, of infringing goods], the export and import of 'infringing' works" (CPI, art. L. 335.2 al. 3).

Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI

#30

Post by KyeRussell »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #21
shinycode wrote: post #19

In France, an artist owns its art for life, even if it’s sold. So let’s say an artist creates a new style, like Picasso did and an other artist creates art that is really close to Picasso. He will lose in court because of IP. Now an AI does the same thing and suddenly no copyright ? What should be done maybe is explicitly asking for every art generated to ask to pay for it and this money goes for the copyrights. But…

AI is a tool that can be produce copies of work. So is paint. Should we ban paint? Also I doubt your claim is true. There’s no way there’s a copyright claim on “paintings that feel like Picasso style”.

As someone that’s undecided on this whole issue, your particular argument comes across as so tone-deaf that I didn’t think that you genuinely believed it when you wrote it.
Post reply on HN