Live data from Hacker News

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

katedowninglaw.com

291–300 of 337 posts

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

#291
post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess your point was so obvious that I missed it (and that's not to belittle it -- it's a good point). Machines are both created and operated by humans for human purposes. Humans are using a machine, created by humans, to create art for human consumption. Unoperated machines are not spontaneously creating art of their own motivation.

And thus my take on this... The model behind Stable Diffusion (or Dall-E) is not infringing itself. It has the latent images it, but there is nothing that you can point to that says "that number there is infringing." It takes a human action to pull together the parts of the model and select what is right and craft the prompt. Asking for "a picture of Mickey Mouse in the style of Pixar" is all sorts of infringing - by…

I completely agree -- that's my take as well.

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

#292
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand that completely kills OSS as a concept, right?

Why would that be? Huge amount of OSS is released under fully permissive licenses.

“Permissive” provided the code is attributed, which the products you advocate for do not do.

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

#293

Am I the only one who thinks this just isn't defined well enough to be decided by the judiciary? It should be legislated. My opinion is that ML training should be distinctly different from human learning.

I agree that it should both be legislated, and substantially different to human learning. In the US (or UK) however, most legislators are such intellectual lightweights that they have no hope of grasping even the basics of what they are legislating.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but now you're making the argument that the legal basis may be there but that to you it doesn't matter. A court isn't going to be very receptive to such an argument I'm afraid. It's pretty thin ice, and if you mess up it will get costly especially with something that sees high rotation.

It’s not thin ice because you can’t prove that a snare was added into a mix behind another snare and then pitched up a little and compressed a little. And artists hardly care much about it more than they care that someone has access to a certain vintage microphone. It’s just some sonic characteristic at that point. I’m not talking about even noticeable sampling of a drum hit but the drum hit being used just to add to…

Good morning!

> This is where transformative allowances come in as well, if not logically because no crime can be committed without any evidence.

I really don't share that particular view. Crimes definitely can occur without evidence, there are plenty of examples. The fact that nobody gets convicted, that possibly the crime goes completely undetected does not mean that no crime occurred.

Let me give you one example of how this could happen: I was in charge of the audit of the 'RSB', a system that controlled a few 100B guilders way back in the day, mainframes were in, the PC/AT was 2 and ran at a whopping 8 Mhz and cost as much as a really good second hand car, Madonna releases 'True Blue'. The bank I worked for had for compliance reasons two physically separate entities, one to produce the code and the data, and another to keep track of it.

Initially I worked on the side that did the daily audits to make sure that everything was good. The process was specified thus: you will receive about 1/8th of a cubic meter of large format (132 column) printout at 7:30 AM. You have 30 minutes to manually review this (feel free to use a pocket calculator that can handle 13 digit numbers if you can find one and be sure to let us know where you found it) and release it, you better have a bloody good reason to not release it because it means that technically there is no opening balance for the day if that should happen. Clearly this is impossible, good luck.

On the first day of my new job, at 7:45 I realized that this is completely impossible so I went to see my boss. He told me that in practice the only known way to make sure that the most horrific of errors are caught is to go to the last page of the report first, check the two number all the way at the bottom of that page and see if they match up, this can be done in less than a minute. And if they match - which they always do - you can safely release the system, it's never been wrong.

So much for the oversight department. About a year later I got accepted as a junior programmer on the other side, and guess what, while there was a formal division between the personal side and the business side of the bank you had access to everything. This was well before ISO27001, security was something someone once may have read something about but we mostly focused on physical security. Once you were 'behind the red rope' you could do just about anything. Sure we had logins and passwords. Three letter login, three letter passwords were pretty common. The three letter logins were typically just the initials of the employee because there wasn't room for much more so those were trivial to guess and there was no upper limit on the number of tries on a password. So you could access pretty much all of the code and while there was a test environment there was no code review worth mentioning. And frankly, with very few exceptions most of the programmers weren't all that good. So it would have been trivial to:

- use someone elses account in the right group

- make a bunch of changes to the RSB system

- ensure that the report that went out to the audit department had matching numbers on the last row of the report

- and finally, to trigger all this say a year after leaving the bank

This likely would never have been discovered because their whole idea of threat modeling did not for one second stop and look at the 'rogue employee' angle, it was strictly a single line of defense: to get on to the 'floor' you had to have a badge that allowed access. The badges were an older Motorola system, brown plastic casing with a sticker on the front with your picture on it. Inside was a beefy pickup coil all the way around the case and a board with a little computer on it that would respond to being powered up by sending out a serial stream ID'ing the badge. That was it. No encryption, no challenge/response. And the ID? It could be set with a nice 8 position dip switch. Guess what ID #001 did?

So all of the requirements for an absolutely perfect crime were there, there would be no evidence and yet a crime would have been committed. There were many other such opportunities, that bank really relied way too much on trust and I would not have been surprised to find out that they had been hacked horribly from the inside without being able to point at the culprit.

The bank was founded in 1918, well before the age of computers and it processed a small mountain of paper every day. On that front their procedures were pretty good. But on the digital side they were - frankly - absolutely hopeless. The gear they used then was old enough that some of it was still labelled 'Sperry Rand' which the company was no longer fielding for about a decade at that time. IT was a cost, security non existent and any half competent coder would have seen 1001 possibilities to defraud that bank, and get away with it cleanly. Maybe some even did.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no artwork in the 1s and 0s. There's an artwork when you render it to a screen. It is not a copyright infringement I go to Disney's website, download a JPEG, convert that JPEG to 1s and 0s, print just a bunch of 1s and 0s and not the image and not ascii art of the image, just like a printing press made up of just [1] and [0] character blocks, and sell that. Yes, the 1s and 0s are mathematically derived from t…

> It is not a copyright infringement I go to Disney's website, download a JPEG, Only because of applied license. > convert that JPEG to 1s and 0s, print just a bunch of 1s and 0s Yes, there is, barring context that maked it fair use (which is an exception that applies to things that would otherwise be violations), this is a fixed exact copy in an alternative form jist as much as a .zip or a lossless .png converted fr…

> Only because of applied license.

Aaargh. Implied.

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

#296

> 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…

They don't have to remove images from the training set, they're saying they're opting to do so, and using that as an argument as to why if there supposedly could be copyright infringement, they're not liable, because they allow it to be removed.

They could just as well not do anything and continue on - it's likely this case will be in defendents favor. Same as how Google can crawl the net, cache data, transform it, etc.

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 'playing fast and loose'. It's an area where there are no existing laws. We're not going to stop AI because some furry deviant art artist complains loudly online.

Are the existing laws written in a way that is favorable to generative AI? No. But the laws do exist. Whether or not one believes those laws apply to generative AI seems to be based on one's belief in how similar that AI software is to humans. I'd argue that systematically ingesting 2.3 billion images is not remotely human (one of a myriad of reasons the comparisons break down), and that it is a long stretch to claim…

There are exactly zero laws about using openly published materials for learning. Human learning but also machine learning.

There's implicit assumption that if you can get a hold of a copy and manage to learn from it you are free to use what you learned in your creations.

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

#298
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sake of argument, let's assume that the six-figure (seven, maybe?) price tag on the hardware was no longer a factor and it was possible to train the models locally, I think the sources of the content everyone is trying to train their local model against would quickly shut down the inundation of traffic they're receiving from the hundreds of thousands of individual computers all trying to build their own "unlimite…

Decentralize it somehow. People contribute computing power to projects like folding@home. Why not do the same thing for AI? A distributed, decentralized, censorship resistant AI model anyone can contribute to would be world changing.

Somebody should make a crypto where mining is based on doing backpropagation.

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

#299
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the list of the most important inventions there are no inventions created by companies. All tax funded. Corporations R&D is great at one thing, making things cheaper to produce and thus more widely available. And that's wonderful. But actually we want corporations to steal that tech from each other because then the consumer benefits the most.

What about a simple basic item like Velcro? Or the printing press? Or the copier? Telegraph? Your claim is… simply utterly untrue.

I exaggerated a bit but none of your examples are from corporate R&D.

Those inventions were mostly self funded by individual inventors who in some cases had a great trouble getting the business interested in the invention at all.

Also how does velcro compare against LED, laser or microchip in terms of importance?

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no artwork in the 1s and 0s. There's an artwork when you render it to a screen. It is not a copyright infringement I go to Disney's website, download a JPEG, convert that JPEG to 1s and 0s, print just a bunch of 1s and 0s and not the image and not ascii art of the image, just like a printing press made up of just [1] and [0] character blocks, and sell that. Yes, the 1s and 0s are mathematically derived from t…

> It is not a copyright infringement I go to Disney's website, download a JPEG, Only because of applied license. > convert that JPEG to 1s and 0s, print just a bunch of 1s and 0s Yes, there is, barring context that maked it fair use (which is an exception that applies to things that would otherwise be violations), this is a fixed exact copy in an alternative form jist as much as a .zip or a lossless .png converted fr…

Well luckily our courts follow de minimis non curat lex and Disney's lawyers know that and are otherwise uninterested in trying cases of free speech and artistic expression.
Post reply on HN