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

71–80 of 166 posts

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

#71

Post by adamsmith143 »

blibble wrote: post #62
adamsmith143 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also hate Human Artists who trained by viewing copies of your artwork and incorporating elements of your style into theirs? Do you sue all Human Artists that create art vaguely similar to yours?

no because it's not done on an industrial scale the purpose of producing art is for people to see it not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant

So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?

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

#72

Post by GaggiX »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #59

> Erik Wallace, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, told me in a phone interview that the lawsuit had “technical inaccuracies” and was “stretching the truth a lot.” Wallace pointed out that Stable Diffusion is only a few gigabytes in size—far too small to contain compressed copies of all or even very many of its training images. >In reality, Stable Diffusion works by first converting a use…

If trained correctly the model could easily reproduce any arbitrary image if you know its coordinate in the latent space (and you use deterministic sampler), regardless of whether the image is present in the dataset or not, it's also easy to imagine as the coordinates are as big as the samples generated by the diffusion model. You can take an image and use DDIM inversion to find the coordinates.

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

#74

Post by shagie »

mywittyname wrote: post #54
celeritascelery wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Proof both ways is difficult. How will a company prove that an image was generated with an illegally-trained model? Unless there becomes some requirement that models be kept around for a century.

They can't. They can make it easier to sue the creator of a work for infringing on existing art or characters ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti... ) used in the work.

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

#75

Post by blibble »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #71
blibble wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no because it's not done on an industrial scale the purpose of producing art is for people to see it not for some megacorp to ingest it on a huge scale to then make the entire concept of art redundant

So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you? You are actually mad at the moral implications of Capitalism and not the legality of AI art?

> So if a Human Artist did this on an "industrial scale" you would sue them for having similar a style, how do you think that lawsuit would turn out for you?

when it becomes a realistic possibility that a single human can ingest every work ever created, and then output a derived work in a second to thousands of people at a time: I'll let you know

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

#76

Post by pitaj »

Our copyright systems are broken, and have been broken for decades at this point.

I don't think copyright should be a thing, ESPECIALLY at the current durations. It's obvious to me that reform is necessary.

Here's what I propose:

- Reduce the duration of existing copyrights to 20 years.

- Reduce the duration of new copyrights to 5 years (maybe 10).

- Provide some form of remittance for individual copyright holders which depends on the income for their living, if the 20 years is not enough.

- Require that what is copyrighted must be submitted to the Library of Congress. When the copyright expires, it is to be released to the public in full.

- Strengthen fair use protections. Make it clear that critiques, reviews, parodies, etc are covered.

- Improve takedown requests. Punish fraudulent takedowns by forcing the filer to pay any lost income to the recipient. Require the takedown requests to have specific information about where the copyright violation occurred and how it isn't fair use.

- No criminal prosecution for copyright offenses.

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

#78

Post by redox99 »

wuqs wrote: post #55
redox99 wrote: post #45

It'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.

[flagged]

> but having your IP ripped out of your own blog feels like being raped, by open-source software or not

That's most likely an irrational feeling. "Adobe AI" will most likely work just as well without including your IP in their dataset, and be able to output something in your style with the right prompt (and other knobs we'll see in the future) without ever having seen your IP.

Potentially you could even run some kind of CLIP on your image and then feed that into "Adobe AI". And I really see no reason to think something like that would ever be considered copyright infringement.

People have the idea that their IP is very meaningfully influencing these AIs, while in reality their artstyles aren't that unique.

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

#79

Post by GaggiX »

ISL wrote: post #63
redox99 wrote: post #45

It'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.

The AI process isn't going away, but suits like these will preserve the opportunity for artists and coders alike to get paid for their work or choose the terms under which it is shared. Without enforcing copyright rules on AI, it may mean the end of copyright entirely. I share a lot of images under CC-BY-SA-NC and share code under the GPL. If someone can train a model off my work and disregard the terms under which I…

What you mean by "enforcing copyright rules on AI"? Regardless of the tool used if the code used by someone heavily copies (against your license) on your code then it's copyright infringement, the fact that the tool is an AI doesn't really change this fact. But I guess you want to expand the copyright law to consider more than just the final product (code in this case), as it would be original in the vast majority of cases.

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

#80

Post by quadcore »

ozten wrote: post #53
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.

The strartup up Chroma is working on solving attribution. https://www.stableattribution.com/

Bingo - that's what Im talking about.
Post reply on HN