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

21–30 of 337 posts

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

#21

Post by Avicebron »

scotty79 wrote: post #17
healsdata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…

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?

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

#22

Post by smoldesu »

healsdata wrote: post #5
scotty79 wrote: post #2

> 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. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…

Unfortunately, a lot of these artists opted-in the moment they uploaded their art to the internet. Once you do that, much like uploading your source code or compiled binary, it's hard to reverse the consequences. All that really happened is that the consequences changed, and a lot of people weren't prepared for it.

Yeah, it's disheartening. There's also no good way to fix it; the cost of storing copies of their art is negligible, and AI trains the same whether the material is copyright or creative commons. If you get Stability AI to omit your art, then Unstable Diffusion will be trained on your likeness. Opt-out of that one, and some guy in Nevada personally sponsors a bespoke model for making copies of your art.

So, I agree with the parent. The most tragic part is not the short-term fight, it's the long-term consequences. Artists will have to internalize what software developers realized decades ago; creating takes work, and copying is free.

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

#23

Post by HelloMcFly »

scotty79 wrote: post #17
healsdata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…

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…

> 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.

I think it's quite presumptuous to unequivocally state that artists lose with this. Is it a complicated situation? Yes, of course, too complicated for such certainty. That's a wonderful thing to believe, but it's just as plausible (I'd argue far, far more plausible as the tech improves) that clients who would formerly pay for their work no longer have to.

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

#24

Post by yokem55 »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #14
adamsmith143 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think creating art in the style of an artist is well covered by Fair Use.

Make a mouse cartoon in the style of Disney and tell me how well that goes down.

That's because you run into trademark laws, not copyright. Not to mention, if you can make the case that your art of the mouse is Parody, then it falls squarely under fair use.

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

#25

Post by haswell »

scotty79 wrote: post #17
healsdata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…

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…

This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted.

As a photographer, I can’t claim to have or require a fraction of the skills used by creators of hand-made art. And even I am not excited about some AI slurping up my best work and commoditizing it.

> So many artists styles could have gone viral and actually bring those artists some work

I’ve seen this sentiment, but it does not match the reality we see play out on the web every day.

The amount of literal content stealing and “creative reposting” that happens with absolutely zero attribution to the actual artist is quite extensive.

It makes no sense to me that the introduction of an AI tool would suddenly solve the problem of attribution instead of just make it far easier to steal content while making it harder to detect or take action against such theft.

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

#26

Post by horsawlarway »

healsdata wrote: post #5
scotty79 wrote: post #2

> 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. This is incredibly disheartening. Who knows how long will it take to progress the tech to the point where anyone will be able to train and run models unrest…

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Its disheartening that artists can opt-out of having a computer algorithm make derivative versions of their creations? I'm probably on the opposite side of the fence. I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The training set should be limited to public domain and CC-0 until such a time it can comply with attribution; then other CC works could b…

Personally - I tend to think along the lines that we should be applying roughly the same rule of thumb here as we do for people.

People are allowed to view private art, draw inspiration and ideas from it, and execute on those to create new things.

Why should we limit AI any differently?

If the end result is too close to the original - apply the same guidelines you would for any other artist who copied your work.

Otherwise... you're not allowed copyright over a particular style (for damn good reason). While I would like to see artists retain some form of revenue, I don't think this is really the most pressing issue on that front.

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

#27

Post by seydor »

acomjean wrote: post #18

>"The output represents the model’s understanding of what is useful, aesthetic, pleasing, etc. and that, together with data filtering and cleaning that general image generating AI companies do,2 is what the companies consider most valuable, not the training data.3" This didn't make any sense to me. Without the curated training data (images) how are they making the models? No matter what, putting images into your mach…

They are never going to compensate the artists. It's cheaper to hire 1000 designers to make 100000 images of artistic styles they are going for

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

#28

Post by scotty79 »

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?

> They could have gone viral because an AI recreated their art style to the degree that they could?

I didn't know of any artist (except for long dead ones) that I saw the names of in prompts.

> And therefore people would abandon the AI to pay the artist individually?

If you have particular commercial needs you discovered through the use of AI you might want to go to the source, not for everything, but for some things. It might be easier to explain some of the stuff you need to a live human than to AI. AI images are still very imperfect and prompts are not easy to create.

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

#29

Post by TylerE »

acomjean wrote: post #20
adamsmith143 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think creating art in the style of an artist is well covered by Fair Use.

In music it sometimes isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Even more famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc.

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

#30

Post by scotty79 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #23
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…

> 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. I think it's quite presumptuous to unequivocally state that artists lose with this. Is it a complicated situation? Yes, of course, too complicated for such certainty. That's a wonderful thing to believe, but it's just as plausible…

It's absolute and total loss for every artist for nearly any artist that won't voluntarily opt-in.

When you consider laws regarding organ donors you might appreciate how socially harmful might be wrong defaults.

Post reply on HN