It's interesting the IP attorney cites The Grey Album as being an example of something that is legal, when the reality is that the case was never brought because the original artists wishes meant it was unattractive for EMI to pursue the case.
An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
61–70 of 337 posts
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#62I 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.
[deleted]
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#63I'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.
I’ve heard this argument on numerous occasions but I have never heard someone justify it or why they believe it. Are there specific similarities that make you believe these are equivalent scenarios? Not just “it feels thematically similar”.
It's the closest thing to a precedent.
Hip-hop originally recorded and transformed vocals, instruments, and beats to create something new from pieces of something old. The practice occurred without permission and obviously ended up in court. Now sampling requires a licensing agreement. The additional cost has fundamentally changed the genre (over the last 40 years).
Hip-hop and tech both ignored IP rights because neither started with a legal framework and both would have found the additional cost prohibitive.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#64Earlier 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?
[deleted]
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#65Earlier 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…
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 i…
> Artists will have to internalize what software developers realized decades ago; creating takes work, and copying is free.
This is very dismissive, the scale is what makes the difference. You can get away with pirating all types of content for personal use.
AI companies are essentially trying to legalize that, but in reverse - taking from small creators to enrich the shareholders of their billion dollar corporations.
If you try to play by these rules and create a million dollar business that distributes various copyrighted content from the internet (e.g. AAA games, movies or music) you'll very quickly realize how much their stance on copyright changes.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand that completely kills OSS as a concept, right?
Free and open source software licenses are redundant in a world where copyright and intellectual property laws don't exist, and no form of media (including software) can legally be owned by anyone.
Casual reminder that the endgame of the GPL was to make software copyright unenforceable.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Are you trolling? Because I can't guess...
No.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#68Earlier 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…
People keep trying to compensate artists with exposure.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#69Earlier 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…
> I do find it disheartening that it's opt-out instead of opt-in This is the crux of the issue for me. It's a different set of rules for AI companies than everyone else. If I started selling pirated copies of Nintendo games they would send an army of lawyers after me and this "opt-out" reasoning would not be a valid defense in court. These AI companies are trying to get away with stealing art and other content with a…
It is a different set of rules, just not in the way you're depicting it. This is not piracy. The whole point is that the AI is using this work in a way that is transformative, just like a person would.
It's not copying, it's breaking down work to it's foundational features and recombining those features with others to make new things. Literally exactly what humans do when they make art.
If a person was doing what these models are doing it not only wouldn't be illegal, it would be laughable if we even had the discussion.
Re: An IP attorney’s reading of the Stable Diffusion class action lawsuit
#70Earlier 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?
[deleted]