3 ms·

It seems like you didn't understand my point > took that image from the online shop They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints

by hbn 4y ago

It seems like you didn't understand my point > took that image from the online shop They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it. It's not like they compressed the image and added it into the model, able to be reversed by anyone who downloads it. In fact it's likely there's other completely distinct images that could have contributed the exact same tweaks to the model, like a hash. >I can enter a bookshop and look around, open a book, read some pages and maybe learn something. >It doesn't give me the right to republish a similar book putting together what I saw, unless the license specifically grants me that right or I obtained a license that does. No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it All rights reserved means "all rights" Nobody authorized them to do what they did. > No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author that's what clean room implementation is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design Wine contributors were not allowed to see Windows leaked source code to avoid copyright infringement claims. both WINE and ReactOS have refused to use the leaks; ReactOS doesn't even allow people who have worked legitimately at MS in the past to be developers, simply because even the smell of contamination would expose the projects to enormous legal risks So, to be fair, Stable Diffusion authors should take inspiration from all the source material, replicate it the best way they can using their own abilities and then train the model on what they produced. They didn't do it for two reasons: - it would have required centuries - the result would have been much less compelling stable diffusion is so interesting due to the fact that the source material was of high quality. So, we can conclude that it's the merit of the authors of the source material, not simply the model itself. Shouldn't they be rewarded or at least consulted before using their works? What if some of them is training their own model on works they have the right to use and now Stable Diffusion took all their hard work away? If stable diffusion was trained on my drawings, it would produce a steaming pile of shit. And nobody would be talking about it right now...
- Game_Ender 4y ago
  This why we have the fair use defense for ignoring copyright [0]. It’s more efficient for society to limit the control copyright allows authors of works so they can be leveraged to enable something even greater. While many in the media community ask permission for almost any use, to maintain good relationship, and limit liability you don’t have to for many uses. “Copyright” and fair use are human defined not absolutes, so the real debate is whether AI models should be allowed to learn from copyright works like a human does. This use case is also close to people who use clips or samples snippets of works in other bits of art which they then profit off of. It is way more efficient at this process than previous methods (having an artist study and practice a style then reproduce it), so that is where the debate is. 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

by hbn 4y ago

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it All rights reserved means "all rights" Nobody authorized them to do what they did. > No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author that's what clean room implementation is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design Wine contributors were not allowed to see Windows leaked source code to avoid copyright infringement claims. both WINE and ReactOS have refused to use the leaks; ReactOS doesn't even allow people who have worked legitimately at MS in the past to be developers, simply because even the smell of contamination would expose the projects to enormous legal risks So, to be fair, Stable Diffusion authors should take inspiration from all the source material, replicate it the best way they can using their own abilities and then train the model on what they produced. They didn't do it for two reasons: - it would have required centuries - the result would have been much less compelling stable diffusion is so interesting due to the fact that the source material was of high quality. So, we can conclude that it's the merit of the authors of the source material, not simply the model itself. Shouldn't they be rewarded or at least consulted before using their works? What if some of them is training their own model on works they have the right to use and now Stable Diffusion took all their hard work away? If stable diffusion was trained on my drawings, it would produce a steaming pile of shit. And nobody would be talking about it right now...

Game_Ender 4y ago
This why we have the fair use defense for ignoring copyright [0]. It’s more efficient for society to limit the control copyright allows authors of works so they can be leveraged to enable something even greater. While many in the media community ask permission for almost any use, to maintain good relationship, and limit liability you don’t have to for many uses. “Copyright” and fair use are human defined not absolutes, so the real debate is whether AI models should be allowed to learn from copyright works like a human does. This use case is also close to people who use clips or samples snippets of works in other bits of art which they then profit off of. It is way more efficient at this process than previous methods (having an artist study and practice a style then reproduce it), so that is where the debate is. 0 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use