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

191–200 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#191

Post by andybak »

mbgerring wrote: post #82
TheDong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if they exist as exact copies in my opinion. The law doesn't recognize a mathematical computer transformation as creating a new work with original copyright. If you give me an image, and I encrypt it with a randomly generated password, and then don't write down the password anywhere, the resulting file will be indistinguishable from random noise. No one can possibly derive the original image from it…

No. Humans decided to include artwork that they did not have any right to use as part of a training data set. This is about holding humans accountable for their actions.

"right" in the informal sense or in some legal sense?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#192

Post by visarga »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #123
myrryr wrote: post #7

I think they will ask them to use the tool to reproduce a known piece of art - which they will most certainly fail to do. I think this has an almost 0 chance of success.

I just took the first few sentences from Wiki that describe Mona Lisa [1], pasted it on HuggingFace [2] and got pretty similar results [3]. [1] The Mona Lisa (/ˌmoʊnə ˈliːsə/ MOH-nə LEE-sə; Italian: Gioconda [dʒoˈkonda] or Monna Lisa [ˈmɔnna ˈliːza]; French: Joconde [ʒɔkɔ̃d]) is a half-length portrait painting by Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci. Considered an archetypal masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance,[4][5]…

> "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world".

Outliers make bad examples. They don't share much similarity with other works.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#193

Post by rysertio »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #99
magnat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how that's different from gzip or base64, which can re-create original image when given appropriate input?

well I guess it wouldn't be different, only there aren't any companies zipping up millions of images and then offering people the chance to get those images by putting in the text prompt that recreates them without paying any fees to the artists whose images were used.

Search engines do that.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#194

Post by realusername »

IncRnd wrote: post #183
realusername wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't call these defects copying either but overfitting characteristics. Usually they are there because there's a massive amount of near-identical images.

It's both undesirable and not relevant to this kind of lawsuit.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#197

Post by astrange »

klabb3 wrote: post #29
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #3

You are literally modern day luddites. If you succeed, you will undo decades of technological progress.

How? If you want to distribute a commercial non-research model, simply train it on data sets where people have given consent. I doubt that research would be affected. At most, I’d expect copyright legislation around training to slightly delay commercial mass-deployment. Given the huge socio-technical transition that is ahead of us, it’s probably a good thing to let people have a chance to form an opinion before openi…

> How? If you want to distribute a commercial non-research model, simply train it on data sets where people have given consent. I doubt that research would be affected.

This is not necessary because the model was trained in Germany and the law there explicitly says you don't need to do that.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#198

Post by imgabe »

Every time you post an image on the Internet, you grant a license for people to make copies of it. Facebook, Instagram, I'm sure DeviantArt and any other site that hosts images has language to this effect in their terms and conditions. It is necessary for a copy to be made in order to transmit the image to a client for anyone to view it. If Stable Diffusion and Midjourney viewing the images is a violation of copyright, then so is Google Image search and everyone with a web browser viewing any non-public domain image on the Internet.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#199

Post by visarga »

chii wrote: post #111
mbgerring wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a pretty easy answer here actually: if you want to include data in a set of training data for an AI system, you need to have (formal, statutory) permission to use it.

why should a new right (the right to study the works) be granted without some compensation given back to society? The existing set of rights granted under copyright does not include this.

Yes, copyright protects expression, not ideas. Ideas are protected with patents.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#200

Post by chii »

NhanH wrote: post #92
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #13

Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

At the very least, Stable Diffusion is much different than Copilot in term of the model license. I, you, and all the artists have irrevocable access to the model (in practical term, I'm not interested in discussion whether they can somehow legal strong arms people from using the model). We only have mere limited access to Copilot. And it is impractical for almost anyone else on earth to train a similar model, while w…

disregarding the access part, i say copilot also does not violate copyright, in so far as it only reproduces insubstantial portions of existing works.

If you asked copilot to reproduce an existing work, then surely that violates copyright - in the same way you can ask SD to reproduce one of the training data (which would violate copyright in the same way).

But both the training, and the usage of these ML models do not violate copyright. Only until someone produces a copyrighted works from it, does that particular _usage_ instance will violate copyright, and it does not invalidate any other usages.

Post reply on HN