4 ms·

How does copyright work with output images? If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? If 2 people generate the same

How does copyright work with output images? If someone runs the model on their own hardware, do they "own" the images generated? If 2 people generate the same image using the same prompt/seed, who "owns" the image?

skipnup 4y ago
Is it any different than Photoshop content aware fill? Or using a camera? Nobody would ever think about Adobe or Nikon having copyright claims over your pictures. For me it's just a tool, the artistic part is providing a good description/base image, refining and choosing the best output. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and we probably live in different countries, so it'll be interesting to wait for the first lawsuit.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Nobody would ever think about Adobe or Nikon having copyright claims over your pictures But it is illegal to share pictures of Eiffel Tower, for example. People do it, but they shouldn't. If I put a picture of Eiffel Tower at night in a book or any other kind of commercial product, I have to pay to use it. Doesn't matter that it's there for my eyes to see it. The question is: are the images generated by an hyper accelerated learning machine using copyrighted material without the author's consent legal? I think they shouldn't be and the data included in the training should be free or licensed.
  - rkeene2 4y ago
    What if Stable Diffusion generates those images ? :-)
  - cypress66 4y ago
    That's actually just French copyright Law, has never been challenged I believe, and applies to the night lights only.
cthalupa 4y ago
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic... In the US, AI generated art cannot be copyrighted. Edit: Some additional details. The US also denied a copyright for one where the creator listed themselves, with the AI just being a co-creator. https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_copyright_office_on_june_29_2022_rejected/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_co... (Original article is paywalled, reddit post contains the relevant bits) In particular: >“Even though you argue that there is some human creative input present in the work that is distinct from RAGHAV’s contribution, this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program,” the office stated. The US does seem to be a bit of an outlier here. The above work was granted copyright in Canada and India. In the EU, AI generated artwork is likely copyrightable: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 The same for the UK: https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/response-to-the-second-ai-consultation-status-quo https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/respon... Edit2: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, go contact one if you actually need legal advice here.
- cal85 4y ago
  That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art. It won’t be the same for every image involving AI in some way. What if you use AI to fill in a portion of an image, as with Adobe’s content aware fill? What if you use a series of SD steps but with a human selecting outputs and feeding them back in as inputs to get something else the AI could not have come up with on its own? The copyright conversation is only just beginning.
  - cthalupa 4y ago
    >That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art "Because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the Work cannot be registered." The actual ruling (and a similar USPTO discussions) are about AI generated art and talk extensively about it in the broad case. The stance of these organizations is that AI generated art is not copyrightable. I don't disagree that the line is blurred when you discuss content aware fill, where the AI is working on a portion of it, but the current use of SD, even img2img and multiple prompts, etc., quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI... Might this change in the future? Possibly. But as it stands today, I would not make any plans that assume you can secure the copyright (in the US) to anything made with SD. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.

skipnup 4y ago

Is it any different than Photoshop content aware fill? Or using a camera? Nobody would ever think about Adobe or Nikon having copyright claims over your pictures. For me it's just a tool, the artistic part is providing a good description/base image, refining and choosing the best output. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and we probably live in different countries, so it'll be interesting to wait for the first lawsuit.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Nobody would ever think about Adobe or Nikon having copyright claims over your pictures But it is illegal to share pictures of Eiffel Tower, for example. People do it, but they shouldn't. If I put a picture of Eiffel Tower at night in a book or any other kind of commercial product, I have to pay to use it. Doesn't matter that it's there for my eyes to see it. The question is: are the images generated by an hyper accelerated learning machine using copyrighted material without the author's consent legal? I think they shouldn't be and the data included in the training should be free or licensed.
- rkeene2 4y ago
  What if Stable Diffusion generates those images ? :-)
- cypress66 4y ago
  That's actually just French copyright Law, has never been challenged I believe, and applies to the night lights only.

cthalupa 4y ago

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-office-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic... In the US, AI generated art cannot be copyrighted. Edit: Some additional details. The US also denied a copyright for one where the creator listed themselves, with the AI just being a co-creator. https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_copyright_office_on_june_29_2022_rejected/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/vshypc/the_us_co... (Original article is paywalled, reddit post contains the relevant bits) In particular: >“Even though you argue that there is some human creative input present in the work that is distinct from RAGHAV’s contribution, this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program,” the office stated. The US does seem to be a bit of an outlier here. The above work was granted copyright in Canada and India. In the EU, AI generated artwork is likely copyrightable: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0 The same for the UK: https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/response-to-the-second-ai-consultation-status-quo https://www.kilburnstrode.com/knowledge/ai/ai-musings/respon... Edit2: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, go contact one if you actually need legal advice here.

cal85 4y ago
That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art. It won’t be the same for every image involving AI in some way. What if you use AI to fill in a portion of an image, as with Adobe’s content aware fill? What if you use a series of SD steps but with a human selecting outputs and feeding them back in as inputs to get something else the AI could not have come up with on its own? The copyright conversation is only just beginning.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  >That’s one case, not a ruling about all AI generated art "Because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the Work cannot be registered." The actual ruling (and a similar USPTO discussions) are about AI generated art and talk extensively about it in the broad case. The stance of these organizations is that AI generated art is not copyrightable. I don't disagree that the line is blurred when you discuss content aware fill, where the AI is working on a portion of it, but the current use of SD, even img2img and multiple prompts, etc., quite clearly falls outside of human authorship as recognized by the US Copyright and Patent offices. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/... https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_AI... Might this change in the future? Possibly. But as it stands today, I would not make any plans that assume you can secure the copyright (in the US) to anything made with SD. Edit: Going through and noting that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, don't listen to some random on the internet for legal advice, get a lawyer if you need it.