3 ms·

Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. The issue is that there is clearly copyrighted works in the mo

Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. The issue is that there is clearly copyrighted works in the model that living artists have not consented to being in the model. > SD et al are defended on the grounds of being transformative use they do not distribute (ie copy) the original training images, and they are not a derivative work due to transformativeness, so the license of the original images is completely irrelevant. If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? It's almost like they know they are copying digital artists works without their explicit consent. This wouldn't be an issue if they only used images in the public domain. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/16/1065247/artists-can-now-opt-out-of-the-next-version-of-stable-diffusion/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/16/1065247/artists-... And we both know that Stable Diffusion have Dreambooth which you have to pay to use the platform, so this is clearly not fair use. https://platform.stability.ai/docs/getting-started/credits-and-billing https://platform.stability.ai/docs/getting-started/credits-a...

Filligree 4y ago
> If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? It's almost like they know they are copying digital artists works without their explicit consent. This wouldn't be an issue if they only used images in the public domain. It might also be because there's a huge backlash against the concept of stable diffusion in certain circles. Whether or not that backlash matches the legalities, or if their logic is sound at all, has absolutely nothing to do with it.
gwern 4y ago
> Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. They definitely are, and I deliberately chose a public domain writer for my example to get away from the narrow procedural grounds and focus on the issue: does generating a 'signature' or 'watermark' prove copying? No, of course not, and that's true whether you are in or out of the public domain. > If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? What is prudent or nice or moral or good PR != legal. (And vice-versa, of course.)

Filligree 4y ago

> If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? It's almost like they know they are copying digital artists works without their explicit consent. This wouldn't be an issue if they only used images in the public domain. It might also be because there's a huge backlash against the concept of stable diffusion in certain circles. Whether or not that backlash matches the legalities, or if their logic is sound at all, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

gwern 4y ago

> Nobody is complaining about William Shakespeare or public domain works that are out of copyright. They definitely are, and I deliberately chose a public domain writer for my example to get away from the narrow procedural grounds and focus on the issue: does generating a 'signature' or 'watermark' prove copying? No, of course not, and that's true whether you are in or out of the public domain. > If this is irrelevant, why is Stability.AI creating an "opt out" system for artists? What is prudent or nice or moral or good PR != legal. (And vice-versa, of course.)