zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
“Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion con­tains unau­tho­rized copies of mil­lions—and pos­si­bly bil­lions—of copy­righted images.”

That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies?

“Hav­ing copied the five bil­lion images—with­out the con­sent of the orig­i­nal artists—Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool.“

“Diffu­sion is a way for an AI pro­gram to fig­ure out how to recon­struct a copy of the train­ing data through denois­ing. Because this is so, in copy­right terms it’s no dif­fer­ent from an MP3 or JPEG—a way of stor­ing a com­pressed copy of cer­tain dig­i­tal data.”

The examples of training diffusion (eg, reconstructing a picture out of noise) will be core to their argument in court. Certainly during training the goal is to reconstruct original images out of noise. But, do they exist in SD as copies? Idk

>>dr_dsh+12
> That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies?

Discovery will show exactly what the base images for training are. You can view that the outputs are derivative works.

I don't think the mechanism is going to shield the violation, and frankly it shouldn't.

License your source material for the purpose and do it right. Doesn't everyone know it's wrong to steal?

>>locuto+kI
People in art school also practice by studying existing art and images.

>>miohta+SI
I think what’s clear is that this is an unprecedented type of use. I’m really interested in seeing how the courts rule on this one as it has wide implications for the AI era.

>>thethi+lJ
Because this use is unprecedented, as you say, it's clear that the law wasn't written with this use case in mind. The more interesting question in my mind is what we think the new law should be, rather than what the courts happen to make of the existing law. I.e., I think the answer should come from politicians not from judges.