[flagged]
Is there a name for this fallacy? Where differing views within a diverse community are interpreted as individual hypocrisy?
Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
41–50 of 166 posts
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#42It 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 just means there will be a Google Books-style settlement where a few major tech companies write big checks to a few major publishers (whose work wasn't even verifiably used in training the models.) The AI models will exist and be ubiquitous on the Internet, you'll just have to pay a small tax to some company in order to use them in commercial work.
Yup, this is exactly what will happen - good ol regulatory capture
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trained from images they own copyright to Do they own the right to train-a-model? It's not clear at all. A lot of great photographers don't want their unique style to be multiplied ad infinitum. Copyright is to "copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work", and this is not an adaptation
You can't prevent others from using a style though. Which is why there are so many bands that people might remember having their songs appear in car commercials, but it turns out the car company just paid for a sound-alike clone of a band and not the actual band content.
but then owning the copyright doesn't matter, because it doesn't cover style (And do they even hold the copyright for derivative works?)
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah gotcha, just asking because I've had near miraculous results with inpainting/outpainting using controlnet and hypermodel tweaks.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#45It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc.
AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#46Shouldn't it be decided on an image-by-image basis? If the resulting image doesn't infringe copyright, what's the relevance of how it was made? That's how it's worked up until this point.
I mean, maybe because the impact is so severe we should HAVE new laws affording more protections to artists, but that's a different argument right?
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#47It's pretty funny that most people that hate AI art and want it banned because of copyright violations, don't understand that the only difference that will make is that instead of having open models, you will only have closed models owned by Adobe who will license all the imagery from Getty, Disney, etc. AI art isn't going away, and it better be open instead of in full control of just 2 or 3 companies.
Yea I agree, AI isn't going away.
It'll be like how many financial instruments are banned to retail consumers, but are used by the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful.
AI isn't going away, we need open models that everyone can use.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#48Humans regurgitate other people's work all the time, and these image generators are well capable of creating non-infringing images. How is AI regurgitating other people's work any different?
Basically there needs to be a copyright-court-like oracle used in training, so as to suppress output that's quoting the sources to much.
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#49It 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…
> That being said, nothing is stopping Getty images, for example, from releasing their own image generator, trained from images they own copyright to.
which is fine, if it's theirs they're free to do what they want with it
however I didn't give Microsoft permission to sell people code derived from my works without attribution
Re: Stable Diffusion copyright lawsuits could be a legal earthquake for AI
#50In 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”.
Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright?
But yes, the claim about an artist owning an entire style sounds pretty off to me. There's no way Picasso has a copyright claim on every cubist painting ever made, nor does Van Gogh own every painting containing a sunflower.