301–310 of 390 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI doesn't actually need the image. It needs a two dimensional array that represents the pixel values. I am sure there are some very clever ways to get around that hurdle if that is where the bar is set.
I'm curious how a "two dimensional pixel array" doesn't correspond to a picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they were humans, a court could deem the outputs copyright infringement I'm not sure I understand how this is self-evident. The closest equivalent I can see would be a human who looks at many pieces of art to understand: - What is art and what is just scribbles or splatter? - What is good and what isn't? - What different styles are possible? Then the human goes and creates their own piece. It turns out, the lega…
This is exactly my thinking. If the court finds somebody guilty of infringing on a human-made piece of digital art the response is to punish the human, not to ban or impose limits on photoshop. At risk of stretching the analogy, you don’t charge the gun with murder…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth pointing out that the problem, in this scenario, is for the creator (ie, the human running the algorithm). They will need to determine whether a piece might violate copyright before using it or selling it. That seems like a very hard problem, and could be the justification for more [new] blanket rules on the AI process.
Proving artwork you created is free from all copyright issues is similarly impossible, but in practice isn’t an issue. So, I don’t see any AI specific justification being relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've seen a lot of confidence on HN and other tech communities that a court would never rule that training an AI on copyrighted images is infringement, but I'm not so sure. To be clear, I hope that training AI on copyrighted images remains legal, because it would cripple the field of AI text and image generation if it wasn't! Regardless of the copyright of the training data which really is unresolved, the copyright…
AI-produced art is still human-made, as a person does the job of engineering a prompt and selecting from the generated images. The copyrightability of such work is unlikely to ever seriously be in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. They seem of the opinion that the copyright question is open. I'm surprised it has taken this long to be honest. I've seen generated images with the blurred Getty watermark on them.
It's not that the watermark is on them per se, but that the model tried to emulate an image it had seen before which had a watermark on it. Imagine showing a child a bunch of pictures with Getty watermarks on them, then they draw their own, with their own emulation of the watermark. They don't know it's a watermark, they don't know what a watermark is, they just see this shape on a lot of pictures and put it on their…
AI and finding the best compression algorithm for an input are essentially the same problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the version which filters out NSFW images based on keywords. The code literally replaces images it thinks are NSFW with Rick Astley. Copyright aside (yes it's probably wrong to hard code an image of Rick Astley in the actual stable diffusion git repository) that image is not contained in the weights of the model. - edit - please god tell me this is not an elaborate rick roll :)
It's not... though if stable-diffusion % python scripts/txt2img.py --prompt "Rick Astley Never Gonna Give You Up" --n_samples 1 --n_iter 1 --plms is such that it triggers NSFW sometimes, then... I'm... let's say "confused" about what entails NSFW prompts. (digging through scroll back) Creating invisible watermark encoder (see https://github.com/ShieldMnt/invisible-watermark)... Sampling: 0%| | 0/1 [00:00 Apparently y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yah, but think of Napster getting eventually usurped by Spotify. The danger is that it's legally no longer possible to update the models (which are very expensive to train), and we end up with only Disney with the copyright horde large enough to train decent models, let alone good ones...
The models are expensive to train right now, but I suspect in 10 years, anyone with a multi gpu rig could train the equivalent of Stable Diffusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they were humans, a court could deem the outputs copyright infringement I'm not sure I understand how this is self-evident. The closest equivalent I can see would be a human who looks at many pieces of art to understand: - What is art and what is just scribbles or splatter? - What is good and what isn't? - What different styles are possible? Then the human goes and creates their own piece. It turns out, the lega…
I think it's more common with music. Some musician goes to a foreign country and heard an obscure local song. 20 years later the musician has forgotten completely about the song and the trip. One day a catchy melody appears in the head of the musician out of the blue, and the musician complete the song and add a lyric. The song get famous, and later reach the foreign country, and everyone acuse the musician of plagia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s completely ridiculous to believe that copyright claims are unenforceable because you ran it through an ML transformation engine. I hope Getty sues and wins. Train your datasets on your own data! This is mass IP theft.
Nonsense. Observations about certain characteristics of a copyrighted work are not covered under that work's copyright. If I take a copyrighted book and produce a table of word frequencies in that book, no serious person would claim that the author's copyright domain extends to my table.
A for profit computer program =! A human being.