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

131–140 of 166 posts

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

#131

Post by bugglebeetle »

alex_sf wrote: post #119
bugglebeetle wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, I don’t care about the lawsuit because the intent with releasing SD was to get sued and then lock in a monopoly based on big players being the only ones capable of rights enforcement. See my other comment.

> I don’t really care about the copyright argument as it relates to human learning because I think this is all a Napster-style false flag by capital owners to enclose ALL data on the internet. The intent isn’t to argue about these models from first principles such that we all have IP-restriction free access from them. It’s to make them do enough legally gray things at scale that they get restricted to only a few power players.

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

#132

Post by shinycode »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #35
KyeRussell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which piece was tone deaf? That AI is a tool? Because it is a tool. Using it to copy a work is a problem with copyright. Using it because it is capable of violating copyright is not. Or that style is not copyrighted? Because it’s not.

I don’t know precisely what lies behind the french IP when they state :

> In the case of partial use of the work, it is assessed according to the similarities between the works

Similarities could be understood as style maybe ? It’s not a clear cut

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

#133

Post by fauxpause_ »

shinycode wrote: post #124
fauxpause_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You can generate whatever you want. If you want to sell it, then maybe it is a copyright violation. Maybe it isn’t. The point is th…

I do agree that AI is a great tool to generate whatever we want and I have no problem with that. My only concern is abuse in the case of copyrights. And a partial copy is still under copyright and IP. Because the services aren’t completely free they might be subject to IP. Let’s say I generate a picture with the style of a famous artist and then use it in one of my marketing campaign. No one will be able to sue me ?…

You absolutely cannot be sued for selling a picture in the style of another artist. It may be debateable whether something is style or content.

You can be sued for selling a copy or a substantially similar work of art. You can make this happen with AI tools.

It seems unlikely to me that someone could go after open AI if you use their tools to generate a copy right violation. But IANAL.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

redox99 wrote: post #127
wuqs wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I'm not denying your feelings. Just pointing out that your art being or not being in their dataset probably makes no difference.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by Turing_Machine »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #130
pwinnski wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compression with extra steps is still compression. Most people don't understand the math involved in LZF-encoding, and lossy audio encoding seems even more strange, so "diffusion" just sounds like a somewhat-lossier form of compression if described in a certain way. I was very dismissive of the anti-AI-image crowd until I saw that Anne Graham Lotz pic. Only a single known source image of her exists, although many cop…

> I was very dismissive of the anti-AI-image crowd until I saw that Anne Graham Lotz pic. Only a single known source image of her exists, although many copies of it are distributed far and wide across the internet https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Anne+Graham+Lotz&t=brave&iax=image... I see dozens of images of this woman (who is apparently some kind of minister). Okay, I'm clearly missing something here. Can you explain furt…

Also, besides the 20 or so copies of this specific pose I see on the first page, I also see numerous others of her either in a different pose or in a different (but similar) outfit -- she's apparently fond of that color combination.

I just put my local copy of Stable Diffusion to work cranking out images based on an "Anne Graham Lotz" prompt. So far, none of them look anything like the original image. It has generated one of her wearing a similar-colored shirt, but the pose is completely different, and as noted above, she seems to like that color.

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

#136

Post by jacquesm »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #121
jacquesm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can rob banks too... doesn't make it legal.

If I rob a bank then you can tell. If I make an AI model on my own computer and train it, how would you ever know? It won’t have a “signature” that can be detected by any kind of AI detection system because I’m the only person who knows it exists. You can make it illegal if you like, but you’ll never be able to enforce it. And other countries are not obligated to follow suit, and will have significant competitive adv…

There are plenty of things that you could do 'on the sly' that are illegal. That's doesn't mean they're not illegal, and that doesn't mean that if you are found out (which is hard but not always impossible) that you will be punished. Given that there are plenty of legal ways of making money, why would you pick an illegal one just because you (think you) can?

The boundaries of the law are rarely set at what you think you can get away with, but are usually set on some other principle and in between that line and the point where you exist there is plenty of room for prosecution. The jails contain lots of people who thought they 'could get away with it'. Don't be one of those.

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

#137

Post by seydor »

shagie wrote: post #128
seydor wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Darth Vader falls under copyright for fictional characters ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_ficti... - I learned about this as part of the Eleanor set of lawsuits which entangled a YouTube car vlogger B is for Build - the most recent bit on the lawsuits - (not B is for Build lawsuit in particular as that was settled) https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42233053/shelby-estate-wi... ). Anyways, u…

:s/Darth Vader/Di Caprio

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

#138

Post by pwinnski »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #130
pwinnski wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compression with extra steps is still compression. Most people don't understand the math involved in LZF-encoding, and lossy audio encoding seems even more strange, so "diffusion" just sounds like a somewhat-lossier form of compression if described in a certain way. I was very dismissive of the anti-AI-image crowd until I saw that Anne Graham Lotz pic. Only a single known source image of her exists, although many cop…

> I was very dismissive of the anti-AI-image crowd until I saw that Anne Graham Lotz pic. Only a single known source image of her exists, although many copies of it are distributed far and wide across the internet https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Anne+Graham+Lotz&t=brave&iax=image... I see dozens of images of this woman (who is apparently some kind of minister). Okay, I'm clearly missing something here. Can you explain furt…

My mistake! I mis-remembered the original Google paper[0], which stated only that the image was in the Stable Diffusion training set.

The complete set of "matches" they got were interesting, even while the number was very low.

0. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188

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

#139

Post by jstarfish »

seydor wrote: post #90
redox99 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Patents. Copyrights. Franchising?

Artists are now experiencing the joy of getting beaten in the market by someone else selling the product they created. It was not allowed to stand in other industries.

Copyright is a necessary evil. Disney may well be the savior of artists in the age of AI. There is no incentive to produce anything original if someone else can just gank it and drown you in volume.

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

#140

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tremon wrote: post #99
honeybadger1 wrote: post #77

Is human recollection also an infringement on copyright?

Yes. See the song "Happy Birthday" for an example: it only entered public domain a few years ago.

It was likely in the public domain the whole time.
Post reply on HN