3 ms·

Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement. The infringement is commercial distribution of copyrighted work. And yes, I do think y

Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement. The infringement is commercial distribution of copyrighted work. And yes, I do think you should be liable for whatever you distribute commercially, regardless of how you obtain it.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement Nitpicking, but only unless it's not counterfeit material. Claiming painting is from "famous painter X" while it's instead a copy it's an infringement. How long before "famous painter X's new painting found in the attic of old lady"?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  But in that case it's not the work that's the problem, but the misrepresentation (read lie) about the provenance.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    and the fact that it is a replica anyway, copying money is a crime, almost anywhere in the World, the simple act of making a copy is enough. Money usually contain artworks I would also not generate pictures of child pornography There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Yes, selling an exact copy of a copyrighted work is an infringement (giving it away generally isn't). Creating a derivative work, or work in the same style, is fair use. Generating a digital image of money isn't the same thing as counterfeiting currency. > I would also not generate pictures of child pornography Legality aside, why not? Who is harmed? > There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML. of course there is, you're free as long as you respect the rules. https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/pull/36 https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/pull/36

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement Nitpicking, but only unless it's not counterfeit material. Claiming painting is from "famous painter X" while it's instead a copy it's an infringement. How long before "famous painter X's new painting found in the attic of old lady"?

thegrimmest 4y ago
But in that case it's not the work that's the problem, but the misrepresentation (read lie) about the provenance.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  and the fact that it is a replica anyway, copying money is a crime, almost anywhere in the World, the simple act of making a copy is enough. Money usually contain artworks I would also not generate pictures of child pornography There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Yes, selling an exact copy of a copyrighted work is an infringement (giving it away generally isn't). Creating a derivative work, or work in the same style, is fair use. Generating a digital image of money isn't the same thing as counterfeiting currency. > I would also not generate pictures of child pornography Legality aside, why not? Who is harmed? > There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML. of course there is, you're free as long as you respect the rules. https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/pull/36 https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/pull/36