Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Abolish all copyright. Are we hackers or not?
You understand that completely kills OSS as a concept, right?
[deleted]
An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
41–50 of 337 posts
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#42Earlier 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…
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, bu…
> This reads like you know what’s best for artists and takes their point of view completely for granted.
I think I know that little better than lawyers do. Even if only because I had zero financial incentive when I formed my opinions.
> 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.
I know it doesn't feel great. But your art has already been commoditized. There are hundreds photographers perfectly capable of replicating your style and many of them do it completely accidentally. The value of your art is a personal element not the content itself. What's valuable is your service and the name you made for yourself.
AI gives an artist a ticket to a lottery that can strongly boost their name without doing any additional service.
> The amount of literal content stealing and “creative reposting” that happens with absolutely zero attribution to the actual artist is quite extensive.
I wonder how much money you've lost due to that. Besides, attribution is naturally built into those "plagiarist" prompts for AI.
As for prompts that don't mention specific authors ... you shouldn't kid yourself that AI won't be able to completely naturally recreate your style from styles similar to yours even it it never seen yours. After all that's what you did to create your style. You created a variation on similar styles you saw during your education as an artist.
> ... just make it far easier to steal content while making it harder to detect or take action against such theft.
steal, theft ... what do artists actually loose in those brazen robberies?
Copyright conglomerates created language that doesn't reflect reality. But it reflects most primitive human instincts evolved in the world of scarcity not abundance.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#43I've been saying this since it came out...
Stable Diffusion is equivalent to hip-hop sampling in the 80s and 90s. The outcome is obvious.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#44I hope the law will converge to this: As a human, I don't need a license to look and get inspired by art. But I am not allowed to feed that same data to a machine as a training dataset without proper authorization from the owner.
I hope the exact opposite. AI, including AGI if we ever get there, cannot be allowed to be strangled in its crib by artificially limiting the information it can learn from in the name of IP maximalism. IP law already goes way too far, the line should be drawn here.
If you want new art you probably want some form of IP. What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines?
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#45> 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…
Yes, it is disheartening. Technology shouldn't be held back by this copyright nonsense. Public domain? Come on. Public domain barely exists anymore with the modern multicentury copyrights.
What we need is enough computation power to run these models on our own computers, on our phones even. Then we'll be able to do whatever we want and there's nothing they can do about it.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Abolish all copyright. Are we hackers or not?
Spoiler alert: They're not! This is really Venture Capital News , and accordingly they've appropriated the whole "hacker" image in an attempt at authenticity.
pg did originally call it 'startup news' but i don't think you have standing to accuse him of 'appropriating' the term 'hacker' until you've hacked together something of comparable significance to on lisp or viaweb
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope the exact opposite. AI, including AGI if we ever get there, cannot be allowed to be strangled in its crib by artificially limiting the information it can learn from in the name of IP maximalism. IP law already goes way too far, the line should be drawn here.
If you want new art you probably want some form of IP. What's the incentive for an artist if at the first whiff of success their output is overtaken and resold by technocrats with machines?
Love of their craft. The same reason anybody undertakes any creative endeavor without charging for it. I admit my position is a bit extreme, but I would like to see the concept of IP abolished as it has become an abusive dead weight on culture.
More moderately, all art is derivative at the end of the day. None of it was created ex nihilo. We already have legal guardrails for direct reproduction of specific characters and specific pieces, and that is plenty. The fact that maximalists want to kill a nascent technology by restricting the right to learn from, something that even our extremely slanted laws have carveouts for, is nothing short of offensive.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#48Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#49> 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 for the jury to wade through.
How can this possibly be a valid good faith argument? Either they're in breach of authors' copyright which extends to every piece of art that they included in the dataset without permission, or they're in the clear and aren't obligated to respond to removal requests.
This reads like damage control to me in an effort to temporarily silence the loudest critics.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#50Interestingly it shows the tenuous nature of the plaintiffs case, even before getting into the plaintiff's large errors. Since reasonably simplified information about SD is available and/or the plaintiff could have involved an expert to review his claims - it does raise a question if the function of the lawsuit is more about rattling chains rather than the merits of their argument. I.E. A deliberate ploy to extract a…
Ultimately, this is just something that has to be solved with legislation, not a court case. It's too novel a setup for a court case to deal with under existing frameworks.
I think one issue is just that of scale. I personally tend to agree that there's something icky with just slurping up literally everyone's content, then producing a tool that will then proceed to put them out of business en masse. But proving that illegal under current law is certainly going to be a challenge.
I have not read the original complaint but it surprises me that the lawsuit doesn't have a much stronger focus on this aspect. Copyright law is very concerned about not destroying the market for a given work through infringement, but this is a case about destroying the market for entire artists at a stroke.
But that's a hard argument in court. There's no legal basis for claiming damages because the entire market itself is being destroyed.
Though I'm not sure it's any weaker than the other claims trying to be made. The basic problem is, this isn't illegal in any sense. I don't just mean "illegal in that it must be banned" but any level of gradation in between, in the licenses, in requiring compensation, in any sort of regulation whatsoever. Technology has simply outrun law again.