6 ms·

Seems like putting a limitation on what someone can do with their own computer on their own time with their own money.

by dymk 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago
Yes, sort of like disallowing someone to DDoS a server using their own computer on their own time with their own money. This is not about one person playing around in private, it's about thousands of people (potentially millions) instantaneously generating art expressly intended to copy someone's specific style and publicly releasing the results.
- googlryas 4y ago
  If you're ddosing someone's server you necessarily aren't playing around in private.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    If people were only playing around with Stable Diffusion in private then this article wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Saying "here's an image I generated" is exactly the use case of reddit. DDoSing reddit is not the use case of reddit. And "private" has more meanings than "secret/only personally known". Posting something you generated on Reddit for fun is private use.
      - burkaman 4y ago
        Tough to argue with that, all I can say is that your usage of the word "private" does not agree with either the dictionary definition or common usage.
        googlryas 4y ago
        Look up the term with relation to copyright law. See also: personal use, fair use. e.g. (pdf) https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=computersci_fac https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...
        burkaman 4y ago
        That link does not define the term, and I haven't been able to find a legal definition of "private use". The paper seems to be using the normal definition, though. > It sounds controversial that a defense of private use exists at all; after all, one usually buys a book for her private use. This use may mean that one can make photocopies of a legally possessed book, in order to read it, for example, not only in the office, but also at home. One may also loan the book to a friend. I would be pretty surprised to find a legal definition that says if you put something online just for fun it doesn't count as copyright infringement. I don't know why we're talking about this though, I'm not a big fan of copyright but that's not what this is about. It's not "you put my drawing on Reddit without my permission", it's "you publicly released a tool on Reddit that allows anyone to effortlessly create infinite variations of my work in my name, please don't do that". I don't care whether or not it's legal, I think it's immoral to create a tool that could not exist without ingesting someone's life's work and then ignore them when they ask you not to do that.
  - asddubs 4y ago
    if you release the artwork you generate, you aren't playing around in private either.
WaxProlix 4y ago
There are plenty of those limitations already, some even having to do with things like IP and copyright.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  I don't see any evidence that things being generated with SD or similar somehow remove those same limitations around IP and copyright. I am just as much hoping Disney looks the other way when I make fanart of their IP regardless of how it is made.

Seems like putting a limitation on what someone can do with their own computer on their own time with their own money.

by dymk 4y ago

Seems like putting a limitation on what someone can do with their own computer on their own time with their own money.

Yes, sort of like disallowing someone to DDoS a server using their own computer on their own time with their own money. This is not about one person playing around in private, it's about thousands of people (potentially millions) instantaneously generating art expressly intended to copy someone's specific style and publicly releasing the results.

googlryas 4y ago
If you're ddosing someone's server you necessarily aren't playing around in private.
- burkaman 4y ago
  If people were only playing around with Stable Diffusion in private then this article wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Saying "here's an image I generated" is exactly the use case of reddit. DDoSing reddit is not the use case of reddit. And "private" has more meanings than "secret/only personally known". Posting something you generated on Reddit for fun is private use.
    - burkaman 4y ago
      Tough to argue with that, all I can say is that your usage of the word "private" does not agree with either the dictionary definition or common usage.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        Look up the term with relation to copyright law. See also: personal use, fair use. e.g. (pdf) https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=computersci_fac https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...
        burkaman 4y ago
        That link does not define the term, and I haven't been able to find a legal definition of "private use". The paper seems to be using the normal definition, though. > It sounds controversial that a defense of private use exists at all; after all, one usually buys a book for her private use. This use may mean that one can make photocopies of a legally possessed book, in order to read it, for example, not only in the office, but also at home. One may also loan the book to a friend. I would be pretty surprised to find a legal definition that says if you put something online just for fun it doesn't count as copyright infringement. I don't know why we're talking about this though, I'm not a big fan of copyright but that's not what this is about. It's not "you put my drawing on Reddit without my permission", it's "you publicly released a tool on Reddit that allows anyone to effortlessly create infinite variations of my work in my name, please don't do that". I don't care whether or not it's legal, I think it's immoral to create a tool that could not exist without ingesting someone's life's work and then ignore them when they ask you not to do that.
- asddubs 4y ago
  if you release the artwork you generate, you aren't playing around in private either.

WaxProlix 4y ago

There are plenty of those limitations already, some even having to do with things like IP and copyright.

cthalupa 4y ago
I don't see any evidence that things being generated with SD or similar somehow remove those same limitations around IP and copyright. I am just as much hoping Disney looks the other way when I make fanart of their IP regardless of how it is made.