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

We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

stablediffusionlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#181

Post by lolinder »

vkou wrote: post #144
lolinder wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists do not have an inalienable right to be paid to do art. There are many reasons why you might argue that the tech is harmful, but that it "will make artists extinct" is not a good one.

And authors don't have any natural right to prevent people from copying their books. And yet, we have decided that society is better off when authors can make money off their work.

That's exactly OP's point: the output to society is what matters, not the simple existence of a career. It can definitely be argued that society will be the worse because SD replaces artists, but we shouldn't assume a priori that eliminating a specific job is a bad thing.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#182

Post by yazaddaruvala »

astrange wrote: post #168
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my point, Diffusion[1] does seem to be “just like” gzip or base64. And it would be illegal for me to sell or distribute zipped copies of images without the copyright holder’s consent. Similarly there might be an argument for why Diffusion[1] specifically can’t be built with copyrighted images. [1] which is just one part of something like Stable Diffusion

A lossy compressor isn't just like a lossless compressor. Especially not one that has ~2 bytes for each input image.

I agree with you. My intuition is also that SD itself is not a violation of copyright.

That said it can sometimes be in violation of copyright if it creates a specific image that is “too close to another original” (just like a human would be in violation even if they never previously saw that image).

But the above is just my intuition (and possibly yours) that doesn’t mean a lawyer couldn’t make the argument that it’s a ”good enough lossy compression - just like jpeg but smaller” and therefore “contains the images in just 2 bytes”.

That lawyer may fail to win the argument, but there is a chance that they do win the argument! Especially as researchers keep making Diffusion and SD models better and better at being compression algos (which is a topic people are actively working on).

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#183

Post by IncRnd »

realusername wrote: post #175
IncRnd wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need for rhetorical games. The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. In some cases the produced images contain pixel level details from the originals. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf

> The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. Nothing points to that, in fact even in this website they had to lie on how stablediffusion actually works, maybe a sign that their argument isn't really solid enough. > [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect and will be improved.

> You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect.

You can call copying of input as a defect, but why are you simultaneously arguing that it doesn't occur?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#184

Post by visarga »

vldmrs wrote: post #126

I find this lawsuit very important both for AI community as well as for artists since it can let everyone know where the boundaries are. All mentioned models were trained on a large batch of works taken from Internet - no one is going to argue that. All of those models cannot exists without content created by people. The models allow to mimic the styles of particular artists making it a perfect tool to kill creativit…

> The models allow to mimic the styles of particular artists making it a perfect tool to kill creativity and artists diversity in the long term.

It is a tool that allows radical combinations of concepts and styles, I'd say it empowers combinatorial exploration. And the combinatorial space is very sparsely explored.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#185

Post by Vecr »

wildpeaks wrote: post #112

If they're so confident that copyright wouldn't apply to them, they should train their models using Disney content and set a proper precedent instead of using content from smaller artists.

I think they might get into trade mark/trade dress issues. There are few enough Disney locations and characters that some form of at least pseudo-overfitting would probably be a problem.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#186

Post by yazaddaruvala »

realusername wrote: post #160
IncRnd wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go to stablediffusionweb.com and enter "a person like biden" into the box. You will see a picture exactly like President Biden. That picture will have been derived from the trained images of Joe Biden. That cannot be in dispute.

Just because it generates you an image like Biden still does not make it a derivative either. You can draw Biden yourself if you're talented and it's not considered a derivative of anything.

Correction: if you draw a copy of Biden and it happens to overlap enough with someone’s copyright of a drawing or image of Biden, you did create a derivative (whether you knew it or not).

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#187

Post by visarga »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #139
kh0st wrote: post #43

"assum­ing nom­i­nal dam­ages of $1 per image" that's quite an assumption lol. To quote "You can't put the genie back in the bottle" And unless I start to see some evidence that this is theft, by an identical piece in a collage being "created" by AI (impossible I think) - then I have ZERO time to consider how they are being stolen or thinking of compensation ideas. I say this with an arts degree - it sucks for strugg…

the funny part is these tools are inspiring new creativity and mediums. someone made a 3d game using ai generated images. it was a lot of work to combine and put together, it only saved on the drawing. this is opening new doors for artists. but ya, they'll need to adapt. maybe an even worse analogy, but i stopped using Photoshop when css got good. no need to make images for rounded corners. no need for me to pay adob…

Wordpress was the worst. It put millions of web devs out of work. Why was there no class action suit? /s

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#188

Post by rysertio »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #2

“Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion con­tains unau­tho­rized copies of mil­lions—and pos­si­bly bil­lions—of copy­righted images.” That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies? “Hav­ing copied the five bil­lion images—with­out the con­sent of the orig­i­nal artists—Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bine…

I would agree that we're acting like hypocrites here. But unlike stable diffusion, GitHub didn't release their model. So it's extremely hard to know what's going on inside copilot, on the other hand we have the model of stable diffusion and we can see wether or not it has memorized copyrighted images.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#189

Post by andybak »

WA wrote: post #78
andybak wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you right up until the final sentence. How did "style" become "work"?

Because in some cases, adding a style prompt gives almost the original image: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_...

And yet nobody has managed to demonstrate reconstruction of a large enough section of a work that is still under copyright to prove the point.

The only thing so far discovered is either a) older public domain works nearly fully reproduced b) small fragments of newer works or c) "likenesses"

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#190

Post by visarga »

razemio wrote: post #12

There are only 2 possible outcomes, right? 1. They win, and big companies are training AI on their portfolio and new artwork which they paid for resulting in the same problem, that artists will even be paid less than today. Also resulting in incredible difficult to judge laws. Has an artist created it himself, or has he used copyrighted works to train his custom model? 2. They lose

> Has an artist created it himself, or has he used copyrighted works to train his custom model?

What if the model is trained on his own works, works that are also licensed out, can the artist be sued for infringing by creating in the same style?

Post reply on HN