4 ms·

I don't think you have to reproduce an entire original work to demonstrate copyright violation. Think about sampling in hip hop for example. A 2 second sample,

I don't think you have to reproduce an entire original work to demonstrate copyright violation. Think about sampling in hip hop for example. A 2 second sample, distorted, re-pitched, etc. can be grounds for a copyright violation.

Salgat 4y ago
The difference here is that the images aren't stored, but rather an extremely abstract description of the image was used to very slightly adjust a network of millions of nodes in a tiny direction. No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model.
- akjetma 4y ago
  there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.
  - andybak 4y ago
    I was with you right up until the final sentence. How did "style" become "work"?
    - limitedsupply 4y ago
      That’s the key question of the lawsuit IMO!
    - WA 4y ago
      Because in some cases, adding a style prompt gives almost the original image: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_might_be_possible_for_stable_diffusion_models/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_...
      - andybak 4y ago
        And yet nobody has managed to demonstrate reconstruction of a large enough section of a work that is still under copyright to prove the point. The only thing so far discovered is either a) older public domain works nearly fully reproduced b) small fragments of newer works or c) "likenesses"
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    [dead]
  - eega 4y ago
    So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to paint in the style of another artist? I‘m no lawyer, but I‘m pretty sure that is completely legss as long as you don’t claim your paintings ARE from the other artist.
  - realusername 4y ago
    No that doesn't, that demonstrates that the model has a abstract features and characteristics of this artists stored in the model, not work. You can't bring back the training images no matter how hard you try.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Or it means their style is so easy to recognize that you can see it even when it doesn't exist. The most common example of this (Greg Rutkowski) is not in StableDiffusion's training set.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    That seems to indicate to me that the original work is actually not under copyright, since if it is the only method of achieving such an image in such a style, then there is no originality to be copyrighted.
- visarga 4y ago
  Not to mention that it works by inverting noise. Different noise, different result. Let's recognise the important contribution of noise here.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  This is very much a 'color of your bits' topic, but I'm not sure why the internal representation matters. It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond. Obviously some representation of the originals exist inside the model+prompt. Why wouldn't that apply to other images in the training sets?
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Because you're silently invoking additional data (the prompt + noise seed), which is not present in the training weights. You have the prompt + noise seed for any given output. An MPEG codec doesn't contain every movie in the world just because it could represent them if given the right file. The white light coming off a blank canvas also doesn't contain a copy of the Mona Lisa which will be revealed once someone obscures some of the light.
    - ifdefdebug 4y ago
      OK so let me encrypt a movie and distribute that. Then you tell people they need to invoke additional data to watch the movie. Also give some hints (try the movie title lol).
      - XorNot 4y ago
        If you distribute a random byte stream, and someone uses that as a one time pad to encrypt a movie, then are you distributing the movie? The answer is of course not, and the same principle applies if someone uses Stable Diffusion to find a latent space encoding for a copyright image (the 231 byte number - had to go double check what the grid size actually is).
        ifdefdebug 4y ago
        I think it boils down to one question: can you prompt the model to show mostly unchanged pictures from artists? Then it's definitely problematic. If not, then I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to give a strong opinion. (my previous answer was just an use case that fits your argument)
- Xelynega 4y ago
  > No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model What does this mean? It doesn't mean you can't recreate the original, because that's been done. It doesn't mean that literally the bits for the image aren't present in the encoded data, because that's true for any compression algorithm.
  - smusamashah 4y ago
    Do you have any examples of recreating an image with these models? Something other than Mona lisa or other famous artworks because they have caused over fitting.
limitedsupply 4y ago
Perhaps different media has different rules? You can’t necessarily apply music sampling rules to text, for example. Eg I don’t think incorporating a phrase from someone else’s poem into my poem would be grounds for a copyright violation.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  "Copyright currently protects poetry just like it protects any other kind of writing or work of authorship. Poetry, therefore, is subject to the same minimal standards for originality that are used for other written works, and the same tests determine whether copyright infringement has occurred." [1] [1] https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss3/13/ https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss3/13/
mirekrusin 4y ago
Can it? I thought up to 15s you can copy it verbatim without violation.

Salgat 4y ago

The difference here is that the images aren't stored, but rather an extremely abstract description of the image was used to very slightly adjust a network of millions of nodes in a tiny direction. No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model.

akjetma 4y ago
there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.
- andybak 4y ago
  I was with you right up until the final sentence. How did "style" become "work"?
  - limitedsupply 4y ago
    That’s the key question of the lawsuit IMO!
  - WA 4y ago
    Because in some cases, adding a style prompt gives almost the original image: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_might_be_possible_for_stable_diffusion_models/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_...
    - andybak 4y ago
      And yet nobody has managed to demonstrate reconstruction of a large enough section of a work that is still under copyright to prove the point. The only thing so far discovered is either a) older public domain works nearly fully reproduced b) small fragments of newer works or c) "likenesses"
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  [dead]
- eega 4y ago
  So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to paint in the style of another artist? I‘m no lawyer, but I‘m pretty sure that is completely legss as long as you don’t claim your paintings ARE from the other artist.
- realusername 4y ago
  No that doesn't, that demonstrates that the model has a abstract features and characteristics of this artists stored in the model, not work. You can't bring back the training images no matter how hard you try.
- astrange 4y ago
  Or it means their style is so easy to recognize that you can see it even when it doesn't exist. The most common example of this (Greg Rutkowski) is not in StableDiffusion's training set.
- djbebs 4y ago
  That seems to indicate to me that the original work is actually not under copyright, since if it is the only method of achieving such an image in such a style, then there is no originality to be copyrighted.
visarga 4y ago
Not to mention that it works by inverting noise. Different noise, different result. Let's recognise the important contribution of noise here.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
This is very much a 'color of your bits' topic, but I'm not sure why the internal representation matters. It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond. Obviously some representation of the originals exist inside the model+prompt. Why wouldn't that apply to other images in the training sets?
- XorNot 4y ago
  Because you're silently invoking additional data (the prompt + noise seed), which is not present in the training weights. You have the prompt + noise seed for any given output. An MPEG codec doesn't contain every movie in the world just because it could represent them if given the right file. The white light coming off a blank canvas also doesn't contain a copy of the Mona Lisa which will be revealed once someone obscures some of the light.
  - ifdefdebug 4y ago
    OK so let me encrypt a movie and distribute that. Then you tell people they need to invoke additional data to watch the movie. Also give some hints (try the movie title lol).
    - XorNot 4y ago
      If you distribute a random byte stream, and someone uses that as a one time pad to encrypt a movie, then are you distributing the movie? The answer is of course not, and the same principle applies if someone uses Stable Diffusion to find a latent space encoding for a copyright image (the 231 byte number - had to go double check what the grid size actually is).
      - ifdefdebug 4y ago
        I think it boils down to one question: can you prompt the model to show mostly unchanged pictures from artists? Then it's definitely problematic. If not, then I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to give a strong opinion. (my previous answer was just an use case that fits your argument)
Xelynega 4y ago
> No semblance of the original image even remotely exists in the model What does this mean? It doesn't mean you can't recreate the original, because that's been done. It doesn't mean that literally the bits for the image aren't present in the encoded data, because that's true for any compression algorithm.
- smusamashah 4y ago
  Do you have any examples of recreating an image with these models? Something other than Mona lisa or other famous artworks because they have caused over fitting.

limitedsupply 4y ago

Perhaps different media has different rules? You can’t necessarily apply music sampling rules to text, for example. Eg I don’t think incorporating a phrase from someone else’s poem into my poem would be grounds for a copyright violation.

IncRnd 4y ago
"Copyright currently protects poetry just like it protects any other kind of writing or work of authorship. Poetry, therefore, is subject to the same minimal standards for originality that are used for other written works, and the same tests determine whether copyright infringement has occurred." [1] [1] https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss3/13/ https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss3/13/

mirekrusin 4y ago

Can it? I thought up to 15s you can copy it verbatim without violation.