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?

In fairness, Diffusion is arguably a very complex entropy coding similar to Arithmetic/Huffman coding.

Given that copyright is protectable even on compressed/encrypted files, it seems fair that the “container of compressed bytes” (in this case the Diffusion model) does “contain” the original images no differently than a compressed folder of images contains the original images.

A lawyer/researcher would likely win this case if they re-create 90%ish of a single input image from the diffusion model with text input.

>>yazadd+X3
Great. Now the defence shows an artist that can recreate an image. Cool, now people who look at images get copyright suits filed against them for encoding those images in their heads.

>>anothe+96
Just because I look at an image does not mean that I can recreate it. storing it in the training data means the AI can recreate it.

There's a world of difference that you are just writing off.

>>dylan6+07
If you spent a decade trying to draw it, wouldn't your brain have the right "weights" to execute it pretty exactly going forward?

Except with computers, they don't need to eat or sleep, converse or attend stand-ups.

And once you're able to draw that one picture, you could probably draw similar ones. Your own style may emerge too.

Just thinking. Copywriters, students, and scribes used to copy stuff verbatim, sometimes just to "learn" it.

The product of that study could be published works, a synthesis of ideas from elsewhere, and so on. We would say it belonged to the executor, though.

So the AI learned, and what it has created belongs to it. Maybe.

Or, once we acknowledge AI can "see" images, precedent opens the way to citizenship (humanship?)