zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI.

For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged by Copilot.

For myself, I am skeptical of intellectual property in the first place. I say go for it.

>>kweing+v6
When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued.

When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded.

I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor, another set of rules for the masses.

>>tpxl+O7
I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals.

I haven't been following super closely but I don't know of any claims or examples where input images were recreated to a significant degree by stable diffusion.

>>rtkwe+Te
Stable Diffusion sometimes reproduces the large watermarks used by stock photo providers on their free sample images. That’s embarrassing at the minimum, and potentially a trademark violation.

>>pavlov+Nr
Surely at the very least it'd be a TOS violation? I doubt any stock photo service grants you enough rights to redistribute their watermarked free image samples? Especially not in the context of a project like Stable Diffusion?

>>bigiai+By
But it's not reproducing their samples. It's just adding their watermark to newly generated pictures you can't find in the training set.

>>Fillig+Rz
If the watermark is their logo or name, it could copyrighted or trademarked.

>>rovr13+gD
And it's the responsibility of the person using the tool to generate that image not to violate copyright by redistributing it.

>>nl+8G
The tool is already redistributing it.

A broadcaster of copyrighted works is not protected against infringement just because they expect viewers to only watch programming they own.

>>behrin+SI
It's not broadcasting an exact replica though, it's instructions to recreate an approximation of the original image. If I look at an image describe it and have someone else or even myself recreate it later that in general isn't copyright infringement, that's just a normal process in art. A more extreme example is the Fairy Hope image and the original AP but even that is more similar to the original than the output created by stable diffusion. Approximate recreations aren't generally copyright violations.

On the subject of trademarks the issue is as far as I know even more on the end user because the protections on them is around use in commerce and consumer confusion not about just recreating them like copyright protections.