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

131–140 of 337 posts

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

#131

Post by antiterra »

usrbinbash wrote: post #72
antiterra wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer program is not a person, so the argument that stable diffusion does what a person does is of limited relevance.

Is it? The model learns concepts from images, not the images itself. It has developed general solutions explaining light, colors, composition, objects and their relation to one another, facial features and too many more concepts to even begin enumerating them. How is this different from a human studying art, literature, music, etc. to learn concepts and then apply them in creating new pictures, novels or songs?

It is different simply because it’s not a human. We can and often do assign laws that affect the automation of something a human can do. For example, installing a device on a firearm that repeatedly pulls the trigger creates a machine gun that is highly restricted legally, regardless of whether a human can easily pull the trigger at the same rate.

Further, just because we can talk about how artists, at a high level do the same thing as AI image generators, the actual mechanism is not exactly the same and is therefore still subject to distinct regulation.

Even if you were able to somehow establish that computer programs should have the same rights as people (since they are made and used by people,) you’re still not out of the woods. Much debate remains about what creativity and originality means when talking about human generated content in an IP sense, and adding the programmatic aspect doesn’t simplify things. (eg The Sina Qua Non of Copyright is Uniqueness, Not Originality https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p327.pdf)

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

#132

Post by l33tman »

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…

The processes seem pretty alike to me (as a neuroscientist and AI researcher). Things will only move on from here, the next generation of these tools won't use a training set of 5B images and complicated month long training procedures, they will allow the "ingestion" of a style by you showing it a single instance once of a target image and it will immediately know the style (just like a human artist would).

I'm not putting any weight here on what is good or bad for society, but relying on that humans somehow work in a completely different way from where AI is and is going is not going to help.

I do think it will take longer for the AIs to know all about human contexts though, so the pairing of human AD + bulk-gen AI seems to me to be an obvious near-term tag team that's hard to beat.

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

#133

Post by halfnormalform »

epistemer wrote: post #120
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…

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.

Just like when Napster resulted in musicians becoming super rich by selling their originals to people who found their music for free? Those things don't happen in real life.

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

#134

Post by williamcotton »

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?

This isn't the kind of question that the lawyers of the defendants are going to ask the court.

They'll more likely ask if it isn't clearly fair use similar to Sony v Universal and Authors Guild v Google and then present evidence of significant non-infringing commercial use.

> 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 same as actually copying.

Yeah, that's basically how the courts see it these days although for a different reason. They don't ask questions about skills or work or anything like that. They ask questions like, "is this supposed infringing work a replacement in the market for the plaintiff's work?".

The deeper questions about what the hell anyone meant by the words in the Constitution about Copyright wait for the highest courts to get involved, which is where we got this nice division between tools and what the tools are used for which allows for innovative fair use of copying other people's protected works with tools like VCRs, online book search and large language models.

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

#135

Post by l33tman »

sandworm101 wrote: post #130
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? If I read Harry Potter, then turn around a write a book about a wizard with a z-shaped scar? Who works at a school for wizards? With a pet owl? Who is an orphan? At some point I have started to violate intellectual property rules. (Ignoring all the Harry Potter material that was itself lifted from pri…

That wasn't the question. The question was if the learning process itself is violating any existing copyright laws.

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

#136

Post by mjhay »

sandworm101 wrote: post #130
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? If I read Harry Potter, then turn around a write a book about a wizard with a z-shaped scar? Who works at a school for wizards? With a pet owl? Who is an orphan? At some point I have started to violate intellectual property rules. (Ignoring all the Harry Potter material that was itself lifted from pri…

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. I really don't see how it is fundamentally different. Most of Harry Potter is derivative of previous fantasy work itself. Nothing is made in a vacuum.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool

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

#137

Post by pessimizer »

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…

> I don't understand how using an image as input to a model is a copyright infringement.

Look at the extreme case, then. What if that one image is your only input, and your output is identical to it? What if your output is your input reflected over the x-axis? What if your output just crops the input? What if your output is your input cut into irregular pieces and randomly rearranged? Which outputs violate copyright?

Slightly less extreme: suppose your input is two images, and your output is those two images next to each other in a single image? Or your output is the second image, reduced in size and placed in the center of the first? What if both of the inputs are human figures, and your output is to cut out the face and hands of one image and put it onto the other?

> images that are derivative of that original image, the same way a counterfeiter would make a copy of it.

Only one of these outputs are anything a counterfeiter would do. Are any of the others copyright-violating?

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

#138

Post by rtepopbe »

stickfigure wrote: post #119
haswell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That characterization of computational neural networks is particularly true in any meaningful way. And being able to "correctly" anthropomorphize them is absolutely not the goal.

Computational neural networks are not models of biological brains, nor are they even attempting to be.

The basic functioning of a computational "neuron" in a neural network is at most reflective of an extreme distillation of the most fundamental concept of how a biological neuron works. And it really is just their functioning - ie executing.

The most important parts of making a computational neural network actually give meaningful output - training - doesn't even rise to the level of being vaguely inspired by the deconstruction of the concepts behind biological functions.

So, no. They aren't models of biological brains any more than boids are models of actual birds.

As for the goals of reasonably anthropomorphizing them... you're talking pretty much full on artificial general intelligence there. I don't believe anybody is reasonably suggesting modern deep learning is even a particularly viable route there, never mind something that's an active goal.

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

#139

Post by km3r »

sandworm101 wrote: post #130
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? If I read Harry Potter, then turn around a write a book about a wizard with a z-shaped scar? Who works at a school for wizards? With a pet owl? Who is an orphan? At some point I have started to violate intellectual property rules. (Ignoring all the Harry Potter material that was itself lifted from pri…

Humans aren't just reading, we're constantly updating our brains neural nets. Both the AI system and brains may be capable of writing a copyright infringing rip off of Harry Potter, but the ability to do so isn't infringement only actually doing so.

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

#140

Post by sandworm101 »

mjhay wrote: post #136
sandworm101 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If the image is freely viewable (say you can browse to it), and you just look at it, are you violating any rights? If I read Harry Potter, then turn around a write a book about a wizard with a z-shaped scar? Who works at a school for wizards? With a pet owl? Who is an orphan? At some point I have started to violate intellectual property rules. (Ignoring all the Harry Potter material that was itself lifted from pri…

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time. I really don't see how it is fundamentally different. Most of Harry Potter is derivative of previous fantasy work itself. Nothing is made in a vacuum. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool

But Rowling knew enough to pull from prior public domain works, not other recent authors. Wizard schools are public domain. An AI author would have to know which they are allowed to use, which they can use under fair use, and which they must ask to use. Humans can do that. I am doing that right now as I use the "Harry Potter" trademark here while posting to HN without the owner's permission. AI systems scraping the internet cannot understand that needed nuance.
Post reply on HN