People who generally make less money than programmers - writers, artists, musicians - should stop their whining and their unfair uses of copyright to control their creative output.
Programmers who are getting shafted by big corporations using their code to build machine learning models need urgent protection and fairness.
It probably doesn't help that almost every copyright argument here gets made with the understanding of copyright prevalent in the American model - that is to say that copyright exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts - whereas in many countries copyright is understood as existing because the creator of something has a moral right to control and ownership of whatever they made.
Obviously this lawsuit is in the U.S but I suppose even if it loses here other lawsuits in other countries, with a different understanding of copyright, might succeed.
The proof of that is they even had to lie about how stable diffusion works on this website to make it convincing, that's a clear sign that they are in the wrong.
Even themselves discovered that the truth won't get them very far.
> Obviously this lawsuit is in the U.S but I suppose even if it loses here other lawsuits in other countries, with a different understanding of copyright, might succeed.
The cat is just out of the bag anyways, if machine learning is outlawed in the US, it will flourish somewhere else instead.
In France for instance an artist cannot transfer the moral rights over its art, but can transfer the commercial rights, and there is no copyright concept (which makes is funny when sites copy the US have have a copyright mention at the bottom)
Programmers love to share code, but they don't want to share it with corporations who don't give back. We invented copyleft as a way to (ab)use the legal system to open up everything. We hate copyright and "love" "copyleft" as a means to weaken copyright.
It would be like if artists gave away all of their art, except not to corporations who hog their copyrights.
It is a multi-front battle they face.
For example, I don't think Sarah Andersen, one of the plaintiffs here, would've reached the popularity she's gained now if it wasn't for her comics being shared on meme sites and social media, for example, and I don't see any "do not repost" watermarks on her recent work like others that do object to resharing on other platforms have started doing.
I think many artists and copyleft programmers have the same positions. The biggest difference is that drawings are considered "art" and code is generally not, despite that fact a technical drawing and business logic are both hardly artistic and mostly an expression of skill whereas the demo scene, the indie gaming scene, and many online artists are very much about expressing themselves within a given set of boundaries.
When Microsoft steals code licensed to Github, people considered that to be a license dispute more than a copyright dispute. I'd argue there is no difference at all between artists and programmers when it comes to their work being absorbed and then reproduced by an AI company.