zlacker

Just because it generates you an image like Biden still does not make it a derivative either.

You can draw Biden yourself if you're talented and it's not considered a derivative of anything.

>>realus+(OP)
There is no need for rhetorical games. The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. In some cases the produced images contain pixel level details from the originals. [1]

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf

>>IncRnd+C
> The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works.

Nothing points to that, in fact even in this website they had to lie on how stablediffusion actually works, maybe a sign that their argument isn't really solid enough.

> [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf

You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect and will be improved.

>>realus+11
> You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect.

You can call copying of input as a defect, but why are you simultaneously arguing that it doesn't occur?

>>realus+(OP)
Correction: if you draw a copy of Biden and it happens to overlap enough with someone’s copyright of a drawing or image of Biden, you did create a derivative (whether you knew it or not).

>>IncRnd+D1
I don't call these defects copying either but overfitting characteristics. Usually they are there because there's a massive amount of near-identical images.

It's both undesirable and not relevant to this kind of lawsuit.

>>yazadd+P1
is that really how copyright law works? Drawing something similar independently is considered a derivative even if there's no links to it?

It's bad news for art websites themselves if that's the case...

>>realus+w4
No that’s not… at least in many countries. Unlike patents, “parallel creation” is allowed, this was fought out in case law over photography decades ago, because photographers would take images of the same subject, then someone else would, and they might incidentally capture a similar image for lots of reasons and thus before ubiquitous photography in our pockets, when you had to have expensive equipment or carefully control the lighting in a portraiture studio to get great results… well it happened and people sued like those with money to spare for lawyers are want to do, and thus precedent has been established for much of this. You don’t see it a lot outside photography but it’s not a new thing for art copyright law and I think the necessity of the user to provide their own input and get different outcomes outside of extremely sophisticated prompt editing… will be a significant fact in their favour.

>>realus+(OP)
The difference is that computers create perfect copies of images by default, people don't.

If a person creates a perfect copy of something it shows they have put thousands of hours of practice into training their skills and maybe dozens or even hundreds of hours into the replica.

When a computer generates a replica of something it's what it was designed to do. AI art is trying to replicate the human process, but it will always have the stink of "the computer could do this perfectly but we are telling it not to right now"

Take Chess as an example. We have Chess engines that can beat even the best human Chess players very consistently.

But we also have Chess engines designed to play against beginners, or at all levels of Chess play really.

We still have Human-only tournaments. Why? Why not allow a Chess Engine set to perform like a Grandmaster to compete in tournaments?

Because there would always be the suspicion that if it wins, it's because it cheated to play at above it's level when it needed to. Because that's always an option for a computer, to behave like a computer does.

>>bluefi+RL
You’re acting like the “computer” has a will of it’s own. Generating a perfect copy of an image would be a completely separate task from training a model for image generation.

There are no models I know of with the ability to generate an exact copy of an image from its training set unless it was solely trained on that image to the point it could. In that case I could argue the model’s purpose was to copy that image rather than learn concepts from a broad variety of images to the point it would be almost impossible to generate an exact copy.

I think a lot of the arguments revolving around AI image generators could benefit from the constituent parties reading up on how transformers work. It would at least make the criticisms more pointed and relevant, unlike the criticisms drawn in the linked article.

>>derang+2U
> There are no models I know of with the ability to generate an exact copy of an image from its training set

Is it "the model cannot possibly recreate an image from its training set perfectly" or is it "the model is extremely unlikely to recreate an image from its training set perfectly, but it could in theory"?

Because I am willing to bet it's the latter.

> You’re acting like the “computer” has a will of it’s own. Generating a perfect copy of an image would be a completely separate task from training a model for image generation.

Not my intent, of course I don't think computers have a will of their own. What I meant, obviously, is that it's always possible for a bad actor of a human to make the computer behave in a way that is detrimental to other humans and then justify it by saying "the computer did it, all I did is train the model".

>>bluefi+RL
>The difference is that computers create perfect copies of images by default

are we looking at the output of the same program? because all of the output images i look at have eyes looking in different direction and things of horror in place of hands or ears, and they feature glasses meting into people faces, and that's the good ones, the bad one have multiple arms contorting out of odd places while bent at unnatural angles.

>>smegge+g41
Storing and retrieving photos, files, music, exactly identical to how they were before, is what computers do.

Save a photo on your computer, open it in a browser or photo viewer, you will get that photo. That is the default behavior of computers. That is not in dispute, is it?

All of this machine learning stuff is trying to get them to not do that. To actually create something new that no one actually stored on them.

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

>>bluefi+901
In theory, you can:

- Open Microsoft Paint

- Make a blank 400 x 400 image

- Select a pixel and input an R,G,B value

- Repeat the last two steps

To reproduce a copyrighted work. I'm sure people have done this with e.g. pixel art images of copyrighted IP of Mario or Link. At 400x400, it would take 160,000 pixels to do this. At 1 second per pixel, a human being could do this in about a week.

Because people have the capability of doing this, and in fact we have proof that people have done so using tools such as MS paint, AND because it is unlikely but possible that someone could reproduce protected IP using such a method, should we ban Microsoft Paint, or the paint tool, or the ability to input raw RGB inputs?