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

An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

katedowninglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 337 posts

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#111

Post by epistemer »

dns_snek wrote: post #49

> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. With that removal, the most outrage-inducing and troublesome output examples disappear from this case, leaving a much more complex and muddled set of facts…

It seems highly foolish from a marketing perspective for the artist too.

I don't see how more people copying the artist style would not increase the value of originals.

A smart artist here should promote that their style is staying in the dataset. It is as good free publicity as they will ever get.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#112

Post by l33tman »

Avicebron wrote: post #21
scotty79 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disheartening because it's a great loss to everybody. Almost none of the people that were generating images in a style of some artist will contact this artist and pay to have an image created. So many artists styles could have gone viral and actually bring those artists some work from the people who tried the AI commercially and got results that weren't completely satisfactory. Now barely anyone will ever have a…

They could have gone viral because an AI recreated their art style to the degree that they could? And therefore people would abandon the AI to pay the artist individually? I'm not sure I follow, wouldn't those people just us the AI to continue creating what they want unless you think that driving the artist to compete monetarily with an AI will somehow work in the artist's favor?

I had absolute zero interest in digital art before, now I have some and would at least react to the artists often mentioned in prompts. They didn't get any money from me before, but the chance is > 0.0 now at least, I might at some point commission some original digital art and now I would checkout both the AI and the humans. Before this I might instead have opted for a stock photo for $5.

But who knows how the numbers turn out in the long run. I don't think the artists is the group that's going to get the most annoyed in the next couple of years - copy writers and programmers, 3D artists, basically anybody who's doing grunt work..

I think the main problem with all of this is that it has entered our lives so fast, compared to other revolutions.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#113

Post by letmevoteplease »

dns_snek wrote: post #97
hehdhdhkf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…

Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…

The technology is coming one way or another. You can stop Stability AI but you can't stop OpenAI (Microsoft) or Google, who can afford to license training data from companies like Shutterstock. A restrictive interpretation of copyright law will just keep it in the hands of the biggest corporations.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#114

Post by dns_snek »

pixl97 wrote: post #102
dns_snek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…

Do you want to live in a future where anything 'original' an artist creates has now blocked anyone else on the planet for the next 99 years and you must pay them royalties? Because we already have Disney now and they suck quite a bit. I honestly want to live in a world where this 'worrying about paying for rent' is not a problem that we're concerned with, and a world with AI that can create and make we far more apt t…

> Do you want to live in a future where anything 'original' an artist creates has now blocked anyone else on the planet for the next 99 years and you must pay them royalties?

No I don't want that but there's a very clear distinction between people who are truly inspired by each others' work and produce an average human output that maybe covers their bills and AI that can pump out billions of replicates per day to drown out all original work, with entirety of that value captured by some corporation.

> I honestly want to live in a world where this 'worrying about paying for rent' is not a problem that we're concerned with, and a world with AI that can create and make we far more apt to achieve that than with the status quo we've been following so far.

Hey, me too. But those human issues should be addressed first, not after automation is allowed to wipe out people's livelihoods. I'm not anti-AI, I'm anti-big tech that seeks to exploit billions of people's original work for their own benefit.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#115

Post by nickthegreek »

dns_snek wrote: post #97
hehdhdhkf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…

Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…

Just an FYI, many artists create with no financial incentive.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#116

Post by jonhohle »

epistemer wrote: post #111
dns_snek wrote: post #49

> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style and further, that future releases of Stable Diffusion will comply with any artist’s requests to remove their images from the training dataset. With that removal, the most outrage-inducing and troublesome output examples disappear from this case, leaving a much more complex and muddled set of facts…

It seems highly foolish from a marketing perspective for the artist too. I don't see how more people copying the artist style would not increase the value of originals. A smart artist here should promote that their style is staying in the dataset. It is as good free publicity as they will ever get.

It depends on whether or not the “style” is associated with the original artist or if the derivatives usurp the original.

e.g. Ask 10 random people who wrote the song “Hurt” and 9 out of 10 will probably say Johnny Cash.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#117

Post by nickthegreek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #94
sebstefan wrote: post #37

> Stability AI has already announced that it is removing users’ ability to request images in a particular artist’s style I hope it returns when they win and get rid of this legal bullying.

There's a big difference between 'rework my drawing to look like it was painted by Goya' and 'render this drawing in the style of Lisa Frank' or any living visual artist famed for a specific identifiable style as opposed to a particular image. Comics are one example of an area where individual artists might develop a large body of work in a very distinctive style. You probably know what a Tintin comic (by Belgian art…

I thought many comics work with a team of artists to create their work. Largely by having 1 person create the style and other's learning to mimic it. Let alone having different people do the line work, shading, coloring, etc.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#118

Post by counttheforks »

xeyownt wrote: post #101

I don't understand how using an image as input to a model is a copyright infringement. If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights? It seems that violation would only come if you would use the model to produce images that are derivative of that original image, the same way a counterfeiter would make a copy of it. Have the skill to copy is not the s…

> If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it)

This doesn't mean anything. If an unsecured SSH server is connected to the internet that lets anyone who connects to it in and gives them a root shell, it is still illegal to 'hack' that machine. The law cares about intent, not technicalities.

edit: Since HN decided to break with "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." again, banning me from replying: This is obviously just an example intended to show that the law cares more about intent than technical measures.

@dang Calm down dude.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#119

Post by stickfigure »

haswell wrote: post #109
xeyownt wrote: post #101

I don't understand how using an image as input to a model is a copyright infringement. If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights? It seems that violation would only come if you would use the model to produce images that are derivative of that original image, the same way a counterfeiter would make a copy of it. Have the skill to copy is not the s…

> If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights? The fundamental issue with this line of argument is that it equates the process of human vision and the consequences of that with that of a computer program ingesting that image and the consequences of that . This anthropomorphization seems like a form of deep fallacy when considering the nature and im…

Computational neural networks are modeled after biological brains. Anthropomorphizing them is not a fallacy; it's kind of the whole goal.

Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit

#120

Post by epistemer »

dns_snek wrote: post #97
hehdhdhkf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the form to remove my reddit comments from chat gpt training data? Or my blog posts from gpt training data? I have a paragraph on the Internet that someone read and got an idea - I want my royalties. These artists complaints are ridiculous, and are being made by people who don’t understand how things work. If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing…

Do you want to live in a future where artists don't make original art, musicians don't make music, book writers don't write, and so on, all because AI companies can replicate 1000 different copies in their style or merely remix it for marginally $0 cost, washed of all original copyright? > All knowledge workers and creatives are going to face this in the future. It’s going to suck This is not a given. It's up to us a…

This is the same stupid argument that Mp3 will destroy music instead of embracing the new marketing opportunities it represents.

IMO an artist that wants their name out of the dataset is a moron. In the end , people copying an artist style over and over will just send the price of originals through the roof. This is completely obvious.

Post reply on HN