Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#41

Post by tiledjinn » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #17

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #9

Headline is quite a bit more definitive than the actual ruling: > The three artists — Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz — immediately ran into problems as two of them — McKernan and Ortiz — did not register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office. Two of them got bounced, Anderson remains. > Judge Orrick writes that it is “unclear” as to whether Stable Diffusion holds “compressed copies” of the image…

It does not contain compressed "copies" of the image. It contains a synthesis of the image.

reconcile your view with the case law on john carmack non-literally copying code

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#42

Post by gosub100 » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #33

sandworm101 wrote: post #13

>> He wrote that the sheer size of the LAION database may protect the company because 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 (theoretically) copyright training images.” This is where I think the judge misspoke. "Copyrighted" does not mean registered . Copyrights attach at c…

I don’t really understand the argument here anyway (although, as your typical commenter, I am reading this before actually reading the article). Every day, I commit a huge number of non-criminal actions. So as long as I have some non-crimes, and I guess it doesn’t even need to be the majority under this standard, I’m fine to commit a bunch of crimes?

No, that is not the precedent set here. A legal claim was brought against the defendant, but (the judge found) that some of the evidence didn't have a specific property (copyright). Also the case was done in civil court, which has different rules and procedures than criminal court. This case is not about what one person did during the day.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#43

Post by coldpie » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29

coldpie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dumb question at all, that is one of the most central questions in this whole debate. I think there's a reasonable argument that humans add their own "stamp" on every artistic output (that isn't a direct 1:1 copy) which would make it a unique work even if closely inspired by another artist. A machine would not add its own "stamp," it's purely a mechanical derivation of others' works. I don't know where I f…

The thing with generative models is, it's hard to make them output anything from their training set verbatim. I don't know of a single case of that succeeding with SD or DALL-E or others. So it's not necessarily false to say that the models too always add their own "stamp".

Yes, but I'd counter that by saying the difference is in its reproducibility. Given the same inputs to the machine (AI model, [copyrighted] training data, prompt, seed), you will get out the exact same output. It's a mechanical derivation of the original works, and therefore, a copyright violation. On the other hand, humans do not work that way, you can't point humans at the same works and get identical outputs. I'm not 1000% sold on this interpretation, but I think it is a reasonable one.

A good counter to that is that the training data that was chosen as an input, and the prompt, are sufficiently original to count as their own work. Kind of like how an artist might use a copyrighted stamp to create their own work (Campbell soup cans).

And a good counter to that is that a translation of a book into another language is still considered a derivation of the original work, not its own work, despite requiring a whole lot of creative human input on the part of the translator.

I don't know!

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#44

Post by themaninthedark » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

RyanAdamas wrote: post #34

Copyright is new age nonsense that denies the chain of influence and inspiration that exists between all people. If you can create something sell it. If it can be easily recreated (or stored digitally) then it isn't yours. Bits are not a bug.

That doesn't hold though, especially the part about stored digitally as then every movie and TV show that is streamed would no longer be copyrighted.

As for easily recreated, it is not hard for anyone to make a wooden block and then use it to make prints but if you made a wooden block print of Campbells soup cans you would probably face a copyright claim from Andy Warhol depending on the "look" of the print.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#45

Post by anon291 » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

wredue wrote: post #19

alistairSH wrote: post #15

This might be a dumb question... I decide to try my hand at art. So, I take courses at the local college, where I'm exposed to copyrighted art. Anything I produce will, in some small way, be based on the totality of my life experience, including any copyrighted material I've encountered along the way? How is training an AI any different than "training" a human? In the human case, isn't any court case really based on…

You are actually the one doing something though. If a line appears on the page, it’s because that’s your intent. For an AI, when a line appears, that is always someone else’s intent. AI can only copy. I mean. Do we really need to go over all the reason why an art scanner that copies art and maybe paints it differently is fundamentally not the same as a human learning to create art?

AI does not copy

Diffusion models are exposed to a blank canvas and then instructed to produce something. At no point are they looking into a database. They simply produce an image that will score highly in their aesthetic estimations.

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#46

Post by whywhywhywhy » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

This is really good news, I support artists but these short sighted individuals if successful in these claims will just build a world that harms artists as these tools wont cease to exist they'll just be put behind the paywalls of some of the richest companies in the world which then will be able to change what they want.

Like look how expensive AutoCAD is, why wouldn't Adobe charge that sort of money or more to access image gen if them and 2 other companies max can possibly provide it.

Sorry but at least with open models we all can benefit, you download it once and its FREE FOREVER you only pay for power used. It's petty and short sighted to try and take that away under the guise of "ethics".

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#47

Post by gumballindie » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #15

This might be a dumb question... I decide to try my hand at art. So, I take courses at the local college, where I'm exposed to copyrighted art. Anything I produce will, in some small way, be based on the totality of my life experience, including any copyrighted material I've encountered along the way? How is training an AI any different than "training" a human? In the human case, isn't any court case really based on…

[flagged]

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#48

Post by coldpie » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:50 PM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #36

coldpie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dumb question at all, that is one of the most central questions in this whole debate. I think there's a reasonable argument that humans add their own "stamp" on every artistic output (that isn't a direct 1:1 copy) which would make it a unique work even if closely inspired by another artist. A machine would not add its own "stamp," it's purely a mechanical derivation of others' works. I don't know where I f…

Can a different person copy the style of copyrighted work so closely that it violates the copyright of the original artist? I feel like this is a question that must be answered before we add AI into the discussion.

Generally no, styles are not copyrightable, but as with all things in the world of IP, it's fuzzy. Here's the first thing I found on a web search: https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/you-cant-copyright-style

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#49

Post by brookst » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:51 PM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #36

coldpie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dumb question at all, that is one of the most central questions in this whole debate. I think there's a reasonable argument that humans add their own "stamp" on every artistic output (that isn't a direct 1:1 copy) which would make it a unique work even if closely inspired by another artist. A machine would not add its own "stamp," it's purely a mechanical derivation of others' works. I don't know where I f…

Can a different person copy the style of copyrighted work so closely that it violates the copyright of the original artist? I feel like this is a question that must be answered before we add AI into the discussion.

It’s a good question and I do not believe a style has ever been found to be copyrightable, only actual works.

Styles would seem to be more in the trade dress / design patent side of IP law. Apple’s famous 22-element iPhone design patent, etc.

But it’s hard to imagine an artist reducing their style to clearly defined elements and applying for protection. “A geometric grid or squares and rectangles with white background and black lines extending entirely across the canvas horizontally and vertically. Some grid rectangles are filled in primary colors. The square intersections of two black grid lines may be filled in primary colors. At least some of the grid lines are spaced irregularly”

Re: Judge Dismisses Copyright Claims Against AI Image Generators

#50

Post by Matticus_Rex » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 2:52 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #26

bertil wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren’t there visual art in the public domain? Yes, photos taken by people working for the government for example, and anything shared with Wikipedia should have a license for free use (typically CC0) [0] That’s an important, valuable part of all images, but a very small segment overall. The vast majority of images (holiday photos, posts on social media, Deviant Art, etc.) are not in the public domain, even if they…

Most images found on Wikimedia sites actually require attribution to the original author, including for derivative works. So if you wished to include such images in training, you would also need an explainable AI that could tell you exactly what training inputs are influencing its output. (SVM is one machine learning method that can easily do this, but I'm not sure if it's ever been applied to image generation.)

> including for derivative works

This presumes that an input having influence on an output means that the output qualifies as a derivative work of that input. A work being in some way derived from another work does not mean that it is a "derivative work" for the purposes of copyright law. Many artists want to make this presumption, but IMO it's extremely dubious as a general claim. It is likely that when this all shakes out, specific works will be able to be established to be derivative works of specific other works, but simply being an input will not cause that. (caveat: IANAL, but I do have a law degree and IP experience)