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

111–120 of 166 posts

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

#111

Post by elicash »

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.

Both will exist either way.

The difference is that the open systems will be for personal use and the closed models by companies using it for profit. And the reason Adobe and others would be used in for profit settings is because they pay the artists. Which is what's intended by the lawsuits?

I suppose you could argue the beneficiaries are the shareholders of Disney, etc rather than its artists. At the same time, maybe this ends with open source systems that artists can host themselves.

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

#112

Post by tumult »

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?

Computers aren’t humans. Software isn’t a person. If you’re going to argue as if computers are now people and deserve having laws apply to them, think about the implications of you owning a human.

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

#113

Post by bugglebeetle »

alex_sf wrote: post #98
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…

> Regardless of the lawsuit, this seems like a quite spurious, self-serving argument in and of itself. If the “coordinates” of the image were not equivalent to the image ... It's simply not. Stable Diffusion 1.5 was trained on over two billion images. Even if we assume the images were only 10kb on average, that would require 20TB of storage space. The pruned 1.5 model is only 4.27GB, or 4,684x smaller. It is fundamen…

> They aren't. Shakespeare did not write them. His works can't be reproduced from them. There is, provably, not enough data for it.

Oh really? Try googling overfitting. Or ask ChatGPT!

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

#114

Post by GaggiX »

blibble wrote: post #96
GaggiX wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, reading your comment, I can infer that the main problem is not the fact that the AI was trained on copyrighted data, but the fact that its performance outperforms that of a human artist.

no, that's just my rhetorical response to a stupid hypothetical argument

But the question was not so stupid as it underlines the actual problem of AI, the scale on which it operates, not the fact that a machine could learn similarly to a human. I found the question pretty clever.

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

#115

Post by bugglebeetle »

unusualmonkey wrote: post #104
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…

> Regardless of the lawsuit, this seems like a quite spurious, self-serving argument in and of itself. If the “coordinates” of the image were not equivalent to the image, how would it be possible to fine tune the model on a set of images and recreate their style? This is setting aside the myriad examples where SD regurgitates fairly close copies of individual works. This argument confuses an image and the style. The…

In the US. In France and other countries, they’re not separable.

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

#116

Post by shagie »

quadcore wrote: post #34
shagie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"is in the style of" or "makes use of the same characters" No because in that case you're talking about, there is at least an artist. There is no artist for a generated picture - closer than the training set.

Publishing an image always has a human and has always been the issue.

Doodles, personal art notebooks, photoshopped images - those have never been things that have run afoul of copyright... until they are published.

A person doodling on some paper or running stable diffusion and using it as a background image for their desktop - these have never been at issue before and from a legal point of view are likely very much the same.

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

#117

Post by modriano »

Hmm. Graphic-media artists tend to have much less wealth and capacity to enforce their copyrights when compared to the music or film industries, but Getty has both the funds and the political connections (the Koch brothers own about 19% of Getty [0]) to vigorously defend their copyrights.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/getty-images-to-receive-500-mil...

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

#118

Post by GaggiX »

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.

You will never own Darth Vader IP.

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

#119

Post by alex_sf »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #113
alex_sf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of the lawsuit, this seems like a quite spurious, self-serving argument in and of itself. If the “coordinates” of the image were not equivalent to the image ... It's simply not. Stable Diffusion 1.5 was trained on over two billion images. Even if we assume the images were only 10kb on average, that would require 20TB of storage space. The pruned 1.5 model is only 4.27GB, or 4,684x smaller. It is fundamen…

> They aren't. Shakespeare did not write them. His works can't be reproduced from them. There is, provably, not enough data for it. Oh really? Try googling overfitting. Or ask ChatGPT!

You're not exactly communicating in good faith here, given that I addressed exactly this:

> The fine tune process represents additional training, and to reliably and consistent reproduce a consistent style generally requires overfitting ...

It's clear you have a perspective that is set in stone, and insist on not understanding the technology. Hopefully you'll re-evaluate when the plaintiffs in these suits inevitably lose.

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

#120

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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…

Short sighted artists claiming that Getty and Adobe models are fine when in 5 years all tools will be piped through these models anyway, in 10 years GPUs will have them built in running real time and the only difference they made with this hissy for is if they pay Getty and Adobe $100+ a month for the privilege instead of it being free.

You can’t escape it, we may as well all benefit instead of this silly crusade making only 4 companies max benefiting, forever.

Post reply on HN