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
It doesn't matter if they exist as exact copies in my opinion.

The law doesn't recognize a mathematical computer transformation as creating a new work with original copyright.

If you give me an image, and I encrypt it with a randomly generated password, and then don't write down the password anywhere, the resulting file will be indistinguishable from random noise. No one can possibly derive the original image from it. But, it's still copyrighted by the original artist as long as they can show "This started as my image, and a machine made a rote mathematical transformation to it" because machine's making rote mathematical transformations cannot create new copyright.

The argument for stable diffusion would be that even if you cannot point to any image, since only algorithmic changes happened to the inputs, without any human creativity, the output is a derived work which does not have its own unique copyright.

>>TheDon+F3
No. Humans decided to include artwork that they did not have any right to use as part of a training data set. This is about holding humans accountable for their actions.

>>mbgerr+66
“Did they have a right to use publicly posted images” is up for the courts to decide

>>dymk+a7
Pretty sure that’s already decided. Publicly played movies and music are not available to be used. Why would the same not apply to posted images?

>>cudgy+Aj
If you post a song on your website and I listen to it am I violating your copyright?

If my parrot recites your song after hearing my alleged infringement, I record its performance and post it on YouTube is that infringement?

Last one, if I use the song from your website to train an song recognition AI is that infringement?

>>UncleE+2R
If I host a song I don't have license to on my website I'm violating copyright by distributing it to you when you listen on my site.

If my parrot recites your song after hearing it and I record that and upload to YouTube. I've violated your copyright.

If a big company does the same(runs the song through a non-human process, then sells the output) I believe they're blatantly infringing copyright.

>>Xelyne+4W
I should have specified the OP has legal rights to the song and the end user listening was under the same granted/implied license as a program doing the web harvesting, my bad.