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
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.
Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time?
The article authors say it works as a "collage tool" trying to minimise the composition and layout of the image as unimportant elements. At the same time forgetting that SD is changing textures as well, so it's a collage minus textures and composition?
Is there anything left to complain about? unless, by draw of luck, both layout and textures are very similar to a training image. But ensuring no close duplications are allowed should suffice.
Copyright should apply one by one, not in bulk. Each work they complain about should be judged on its own merits.
The fact that the derivation involves millions of works as opposed to a single one is immaterial for the copyright issue.
Copyright, and laws in general, exists to protect the human members of society not some abstract representation of them.
Legislation is driven by people who are, on aggregate, not autistic. So it's entirely appropriate to presume that a person not understanding how that process works is indeed autistic, especially if they suggest machines are subjects of law by analogy with human beings.
It's not that autists are bad people, they are just outliers in the political spectrum, as you can see from the complete disconnect of up-voted AI-related comments on Hacker News, where autistic engineers are clearly over-represented, versus just about any venue where other professionals, such as painters or musicians, congregate. Just try to suggest to them that a corporation has the right to use their work for free and profit from it while leaving them unemployed, because the algorithm the corporation uses to exploit them is in some abstract sense similar to how their brain works. That position is so for out on the spectrum that presuming a personality peculiarity of the emitter is the absolutely most charitable interpretation.