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

81–90 of 166 posts

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

#81

Post by shinycode »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #38
shinycode wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Nothing you have said implies you cannot copy the style of another artist. Which is obvious. People copy styles all the time. You don’t want Renoir suing Monet over who owns Impressionism. That is very different from saying you cannot recreate his specific works. Or do crappy Pop Art faux copies.

I’m not an artist so I have no problem with being able to generate almost free quality art on my own within minutes.

Before those AI if I ever wanted something specific I had to go see an artist and ask (prompt) him for the art I want. If I ask him to draw Andy Warhol Marilyn with my face on it. Can he charge me for it without copyright infringement ? Maybe nobody cares and no one is going to do anything about it but still, his style is specific right ? My face or my dog’s face makes the drawing completely different.

If AI is just « an other form of intelligence », why shouldn’t it be subjected to the same laws ?

If it’s just a tool and not an intelligence, why would openAI wouldn’t be subjected to the same rules ?

If all you do for a living is painting, if I wan’t a unique painting that fit your work style I have to ask you to do it. Now I can ask an AI to paint exactly that but you are not in the loop anymore but your work has been used to train this AI and no one will ever ask you to create art because they love your style and can have it for free.

I mean, I’m all in for free stuff and I’m not an artist but what does artists feel about it ?

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

#82

Post by tremon »

dmm wrote: post #41
ytreacj wrote: post #25

[flagged]

Is there a name for this fallacy? Where differing views within a diverse community are interpreted as individual hypocrisy?

Not sure if there's a more specific word for it, but it's basically just a straw man attack: constructing a single "opponent" from disjointed pieces of information. As such, you could also classify it as a hasty generalization or a composition error.

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

#83

Post by justrealist »

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…

Yes but an alternate view of the copyright is that a person get a degree in English literature and carefully reads all of Shakespeare's writing, and then goes onto write a screenplay which thematically derives from Hamlet.

Obviously you get the Shakespeare influence, but the bar on copyright infringement is very high for a reason — we don't want to sue artists for being influenced by another writer.

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

#84

Post by redox99 »

seydor wrote: post #52
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.

Can they even license those works to train a model? And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.

> Can they even license those works to train a model?

Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes

> And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.

No because a single image of Darth Vader alone won't work. You need a pretrained base model, trained with millions of images. Only then you can feed such base model a single image and get something decent.

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

#85

Post by adamsmith143 »

blibble wrote: post #75
adamsmith143 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument not the real possibility of a human doing this. You have unrealistic expectations of AI art and such a lawsuit against a human would obviously not go in your favor. 5 seconds of google will tell you that Style is not copyright protected so your entire premise is flawed.

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

#86

Post by unusualmonkey »

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]

How dare someone look at content you post publically!

If you don't want people to see and learn from your art, maybe don't make it public?

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

#87

Post by tremon »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #56
tremon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Which came first, copyright or the printing press? Was the printing press banned because of copyright? I feel like you’re making the same argument as me, with the same rhetoric, but a different example. No, I do not think the printing press, paint, or generative tools are bannable by copyright. I do think all 3 could be used to produce a work that is in violation of copyright. And no, I don’t think a novel work pro…

I think it's just not clear what argument you're actually making. When you say "a novel work produced by any of them", are you equating the works produced by paint with the works produced by AI? Are you saying that if I throw a can of white paint against a Jackson Pollock painting, the paint itself is producing a novel work? That if a million printing presses print out a million dictionaries, one of them is bound to produce the entire works of Shakespeare?

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

#88

Post by tough »

blibble wrote: post #49
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…

> 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

Funny because getty will steal public domain images and charge you 200$ for it

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

#89

Post by wuqs »

redox99 wrote: post #78
wuqs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

first of all, it is pretty prepotent to deny someone else feelings straight out of the box. i am an artist and if someone would came with the same art-style i do on Blender with an industrial scale speed; with some text input that took 15 seconds to type and MY data is on it, it would feel like a rape.

and i do not think "i am too insignificant to make an impactful change in society" ... if everyone think(ed) like the quote, life probably would be worse?

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

#90

Post by seydor »

redox99 wrote: post #84
seydor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they even license those works to train a model? And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI.

> Can they even license those works to train a model? Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes > And if they can, then everyone can. I can buy the rights to a single photograph of Darth Vader and create an entire series TV about his life using AI. No because a single image of Darth Vader alone won't work. You need a pretrained base model, trained with millions of images. Only then you ca…

> Adobe is already creating such AI with these kinds of partners, so yes

So, nobody has contested them yet. I smell a class-action lawsuit for them from the original makers of their clipart library.

The base model can be trained on open source images. Or people may use adobe's software for that. From just a few images of Darth you can make basically anything, so yes it's quite doable already.

It seems to me there is no way to put this cat back in the bag ever again.

In the case of Darth Vader, there is probably a trademark involved as well, but the vast majority of photos , celebs etc don't have that.

Post reply on HN