3 ms·

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earrin

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images. from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse-theft/ https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...

londons_explore 4y ago
I think this happens a lot with famous images since that image will be in the training set hundreds of times. Even if deduplication efforts are done, that painting will still be in the background of movie shots etc.
rtkwe 4y ago
> Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer Even that if done by a person as far as I understand it would not constitute a copyright infringement. It's a separate work mimicking Vermeer's original. The closest real world equivalent I can think of is probably the Obama Hope case by AP vs Shepard Fairy but that settled out of court so we don't really know what the status of that kind of reproduction is legally. On top of that though the SD image isn't just a recoloring with some additions like Fairy's was so it's not quite as close to the original as that case is.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done)
- blendergeek 4y ago
  Have you been following the Andy Warhol Prince drawing case? It is current at the SCOTUS so we should see a ruling for the USA sometime in the next year or so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_t...
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    No hadn't heard of it, I don't follow copyright law extremely closely it tends to make me annoyed. On it's face reading the case summaries and looking at the two pictures, it feels like the act of manually repainting and the color choices should be enough to render it a transformative work. It's one of the fundamental problems with trying to apply copyright to anything other than precise copies, art remixes and recombines all the time, it's fundamental to the process.

londons_explore 4y ago

I think this happens a lot with famous images since that image will be in the training set hundreds of times. Even if deduplication efforts are done, that painting will still be in the background of movie shots etc.

rtkwe 4y ago

> Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer Even that if done by a person as far as I understand it would not constitute a copyright infringement. It's a separate work mimicking Vermeer's original. The closest real world equivalent I can think of is probably the Obama Hope case by AP vs Shepard Fairy but that settled out of court so we don't really know what the status of that kind of reproduction is legally. On top of that though the SD image isn't just a recoloring with some additions like Fairy's was so it's not quite as close to the original as that case is.

matkoniecz 4y ago
It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done)
blendergeek 4y ago
Have you been following the Andy Warhol Prince drawing case? It is current at the SCOTUS so we should see a ruling for the USA sometime in the next year or so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_t...
- rtkwe 4y ago
  No hadn't heard of it, I don't follow copyright law extremely closely it tends to make me annoyed. On it's face reading the case summaries and looking at the two pictures, it feels like the act of manually repainting and the color choices should be enough to render it a transformative work. It's one of the fundamental problems with trying to apply copyright to anything other than precise copies, art remixes and recombines all the time, it's fundamental to the process.