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
I don't think you have to reproduce an entire original work to demonstrate copyright violation. Think about sampling in hip hop for example. A 2 second sample, distorted, re-pitched, etc. can be grounds for a copyright violation.

>>akjetm+D3
The difference here is that the images aren't stored, but rather an extremely abstract description of the image was used to very slightly adjust a network of millions of nodes in a tiny direction. No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model.

>>Salgat+R3
This is very much a 'color of your bits' topic, but I'm not sure why the internal representation matters. It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond. Obviously some representation of the originals exist inside the model+prompt. Why wouldn't that apply to other images in the training sets?

>>AlotOf+D7
>It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond.

A recreation of a piece of art does not mean a copy, I've personally seen hundreds of recreations of Edvard Munch's 'The Scream', all of them perfectly legal.

Even in a massively overtrained model, it is practically impossible to create a 1:1 copy of a piece of art the model was trained upon.

And of course that would be a pointless exercise to begin with, why would anyone want to generate 1:1 copies (or anything near that) of existing images ?

The whole 'magic' of Stable Diffusion is that you can create new works of art in the combined styles of art, photography etc that it has been trained on.

>>huggin+kO
A work doesn't have to be identical to be considered a derivative work, which is why we also don't consider every JPEG a newly copyrighted image distinct from the source material.

As an example of a plausible scenario where copyright might actually be violated, consider this: an NGO wants images on their website. They type in something like 'afghan girl' or 'struggling child' and unknowingly use the recreations of the famous photographs they get.