Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 442 posts

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#191

Post by silverlight »

ptx wrote: post #174

> Orrick spends the rest of his ruling explaining why he found the artists’ complaint defective, which includes various issues, but the big one being that two of the artists — McKernan and Ortiz, did not actually file copyrights on their art with the U.S. Copyright Office. [...] The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted…

In the U.S. you have to actually file for a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office if you actually want to bring a copyright suit against someone.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#192

Post by monkaiju »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #71

Having done way more corporate court than I want (patents, mergers, liquidation), I’m increasingly convinced that the judicial system is fundamentally flawed. The reality is that the law in 2023 US is so obscure and opaque and how judges come to their ruling seems to be by their total whim with no actual philosophy other than maintenance of the system. Further I’m extremely unimpressed with the vast majority of judge…

The courts are like the doors to the Ritz, open to everyone!

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#193

Post by myaccountonhn »

CrimsonRain wrote: post #73
kranke155 wrote: post #65

This will be the greatest act of Intellectual Property theft in history. All because judges will be befuddled about what to do after hearing terms like “training data” and “compression”. We will, of course get the emails in 10-20 years showing that it’s all lies and that the CEOs of these companies knew exactly what they were doing. If this continues, AI will be the great inequality machine in history. Take data from…

There is no "taking data" going on. Nobody is going into your private locker and training on your painting, music or cooking recipes. If you put your "work" out in the world, anyone who views it, is automatically training their brains on it. Viewing is training.

AIs and humans are not the same, why do people keep grouping them together and assume the same logic should apply?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#194

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #123
corethree wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us the sum total of our experiences and that includes copy written work. Holding an LLM guilty for that is like holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work.

You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright "The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable), or that all DeviantArt users’ Output Images rely upon (theoret…

> When is my work protected?

> Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

> Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

> No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

from https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=....

I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). I wonder how much it would cost in copyright fees to register all of LAION.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#195

Post by nologic01 »

Wissenschafter wrote: post #160
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

People like to create things regardless of profit motive, like art, who woulda thunk it? I don't understand how people think this will suddenly make human art vanish, that is just ridiculous and naive. People will spend their limited lifespan to make art, because that's what humans just do. Cavemen weren't being paid to paint on the walls. Your viewpoint is honestly insane. The people against AI art are bonkers.

In your infinite sanity you have not answered my question of how a creative person will dedicate their life (starting from long studies) producing something that society will not reward in any way.

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#196

Post by throwaway5959 »

csallen wrote: post #162
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

I despise the underlying belief here. That belief that the only reason people create art is based on desires for fame and monetary gain. Which is so demonstrably incorrect that it boggles my mind. This is where centuries of copyright law have gotten us, brainwashing people into thinking ideas are property ("intellectual property") and should be treated as rivalrous goods, and that the only reason to be an artist is t…

Do you want to work for free?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#197

Post by Kim_Bruning »

raincole wrote: post #142

My perspective is there are two different main issues about AI (especially Stable Diffusion). One is how it works consistently with the current law. Ml model is basically a highly lossy compressed data format. If you collect millions of copyrighted images, merge them into a super big image, then compress it into a .jpg. Are you allowed to redistribute this .jpg file? To me, it's mostly depending on how lossy (low qua…

So just to be sure: the list of URLs + metadata that gets used for stable diffusion is several terabytes. Not the images. Just the list of URLs alone (and a bit of other metadata).

Stable diffusion itself is just 6+ GB, and fits comfortably on my USB stick.

That's one heck of a lossy compression algorithm, sir!

(this thread has more discussion on this line of thinking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37879938 )

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#198

Post by renegat0x0 »

csallen wrote: post #162
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

I despise the underlying belief here. That belief that the only reason people create art is based on desires for fame and monetary gain. Which is so demonstrably incorrect that it boggles my mind. This is where centuries of copyright law have gotten us, brainwashing people into thinking ideas are property ("intellectual property") and should be treated as rivalrous goods, and that the only reason to be an artist is t…

... but you do have a rent to pay for? You know that artists also have to live somewhere?

Why do we have stars on github? Maybe not for fame, but it is a good indicator of how somebody is good. Fame is important. We do not make github repositories for "stars", but I think it is a good motivator for people to continue what they're doing.

If there is an author who spent years of his life into producing some kind of music piece, should not there be some kind of laws protecting his work from theft?

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#199

Post by [deleted] »

csallen wrote: post #162
nologic01 wrote: post #134

Can somebody explain how this will not kill any incentive to publish anything? Why would any human spend their limited lifespan to create a piece of work that will be grabbed without permission, approximated algorithmically (at least on the surface) and reused in infinite possible small variations without any attribution or remuneration whatsoever? This feels like a reversion to medieval times with minimal trade betw…

I despise the underlying belief here. That belief that the only reason people create art is based on desires for fame and monetary gain. Which is so demonstrably incorrect that it boggles my mind. This is where centuries of copyright law have gotten us, brainwashing people into thinking ideas are property ("intellectual property") and should be treated as rivalrous goods, and that the only reason to be an artist is t…

[deleted]

Re: Judge pares down artists' AI copyright lawsuit against Midjourney, Stability AI

#200

Post by delecti »

TotalCrackpot wrote: post #107
nness wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should it be replaced with — a system where no one retains intellectual rights over the works that they create?

What is intellectual right? I respect authorship, with obvious consideration that no intellectual activity happens in a vacuum, as Isaac Newton said: "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.". I believe that I should never be able to get financially hurt or go to prison because I used other person's thoughts.

> I believe that I should never be able to get financially hurt or go to prison because I used other person's thoughts

"Use another person's thoughts" is obfuscating the reality of the situation so far as to be disingenuous. The way society ensures new works are created is to guarantee a temporary monopoly over certain narrow types of ideas to their creators. Why would anybody be an author if everyone could download free copies of any new book that came out?

I think patents are granted too liberally, and that copyright lasts at least twice as long as it should, but to argue that intellectual property can't even in theory be beneficial to protect is silly.

Post reply on HN