9 ms·

> 90%ish of a single input image Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time

> 90%ish of a single input image Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The article authors say it works as a "collage tool" trying to minimise the composition and layout of the image as unimportant elements. At the same time forgetting that SD is changing textures as well, so it's a collage minus textures and composition? Is there anything left to complain about? unless, by draw of luck, both layout and textures are very similar to a training image. But ensuring no close duplications are allowed should suffice. Copyright should apply one by one, not in bulk. Each work they complain about should be judged on its own merits.

manholio 4y ago
But they are not original works, they are wholly derived works of the training data set. Take that data set away and the algorithm is unable to produce a single original pixel. The fact that the derivation involves millions of works as opposed to a single one is immaterial for the copyright issue.
- realusername 4y ago
  The training data set is indeed mandatory but that doesn't make the resulting model a derivative in itself. In fact the training is specifically made to remove derivatives.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    Go to stablediffusionweb.com and enter "a person like biden" into the box. You will see a picture exactly like President Biden. That picture will have been derived from the trained images of Joe Biden. That cannot be in dispute.
    - realusername 4y ago
      Just because it generates you an image like Biden still does not make it a derivative either. You can draw Biden yourself if you're talented and it's not considered a derivative of anything.
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        There is no need for rhetorical games. The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. In some cases the produced images contain pixel level details from the originals. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
        realusername 4y ago
        > The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. Nothing points to that, in fact even in this website they had to lie on how stablediffusion actually works, maybe a sign that their argument isn't really solid enough. > [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect and will be improved.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect. You can call copying of input as a defect, but why are you simultaneously arguing that it doesn't occur?
        realusername 4y ago
        I don't call these defects copying either but overfitting characteristics. Usually they are there because there's a massive amount of near-identical images. It's both undesirable and not relevant to this kind of lawsuit.
      - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
        Correction: if you draw a copy of Biden and it happens to overlap enough with someone’s copyright of a drawing or image of Biden, you did create a derivative (whether you knew it or not).
        4y ago
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      You've made some errors in reasoning. First, there is a legal definition of a "derivative work" and there is an artistic notion of a "derivative work". If the two of us both draw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, artistically we have both derived the drawing based on the original statue. However, neither of these drawings in relation to the original sculpture nor the other drawing is legally considered a derivative work. Let's think about a cartoonish caricature of Joe Biden. What "makes up" Joe Biden? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu0lUxxVF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu0lUxxVF4 To what extent are these "constituent parts" present in every image of Joe Biden? All of them? Is the latent space not something that is instead hidden in all images of Joe Biden? Can an image of Joe Biden be made by anyone that is not derived from these "high order" characteristics of what is recognizable as Joe Biden across a number of different renderings from disparate individuals?
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        I can draw Biden, yes, but SD can only draw Biden by deriving it's output from the images on which it was trained. This is a simple tautology, because SD cannot draw Biden without having been trained on that data. SD both creates derivative works and also sometimes creates pixel level copies from portions of the trained data.
        williamcotton 4y ago
        Yes, and we are now using the artistic definition of “derived” and not the legal definition. You cannot copyright “any image that resembles Joe Biden”.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        This isn't about what can be copyrighted but that there are copyrighted images being used without following the legal requirements.
        bobbruno 4y ago
        Can you draw Biden without ever having seen him or a picture of him? So,why is it that you are not deriving but SD is?
    - rsuelzer 4y ago
      So is your mental image of Joe Biden, unless you know him personally.
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  If I were to take the first word from a thousand books and use it to write my own would I be guilty of copyright violations?
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    Words have a special carve out in copyright law / precedent. So much so that a whole other category of Intellectual Property exists called Trademarks to protect special words. But back to your point “if you were to take the first sentence from a thousand books and use it in your own book”, then yes based on my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright you would be in violation of IP laws.
    - basch 4y ago
      I doubt it would be a violation. Specifically fair use #3 "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." A sentence being a copyright violation would make every book review in the world illegal.
- basch 4y ago
  If I take a million copywritten images from magazines, cut them with scissors, and make a single collage, I would expect the resulting image to be fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, like self defense, where you justify your infringement. People are treating this like its a binary technical decision. Either it is or isn't a violation. Reality is that things are spectrums and judges judge. SD will likely be treated like a remix that sampled copywritten work, but just a tiny bit of each work, and sufficiently transformed it to create a new work.
  - chongli 4y ago
    If I take a million copywritten images from magazines, cut them with scissors, and make a single collage, I would expect the resulting image to be fair use. That’s not how it works. Your collage would be fine if it was the only one since you used magazines you bought. Where you’d get into trouble is if you started printing copies of your collage and distributing them. In that case you’d be producing derived works and be on the hook for paying for licenses from the original authors.
    - basch 4y ago
      That’s not how fair use works. It’s not a binary switch where commercial derivatives automatically require licensing. Such a college would be ruled transformative and non competitive. Me having bought the magazines also has nothing to do with anything. Would apply equally if they were gifted or free or stolen.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  If I make software that randomly draws pixels on the screen then we can say for a fact that no copyrighted images were used. If that software happens to output an image that is in violation of copyright then it is not the fault of the model. Also, if you ran this software in your home and did nothing with the image, then there's no violation of copyright either. It only becomes an issue when you choose to publish the image. The key part of copyright is when someone publishes an image as their own. That they copy an image doesn't matter at all. It's what they DO with the image that matters! The courts will most likely make a similar distinction between the model, the outputs of the model, and when an individual publishes the outputs of the model. This would be that the copyright violation occurs when an individual publishes an image. Now, if tools like Stable Diffusion are constantly putting users at risk of unknowingly violating copyrights then this tool becomes less appealing. In this case it would make commercial sense to help users know when they are in violation of copyright. It would also make sense to update our copyright catalogues to facilitate these kinds of fingerprints.
- smegger001 4y ago
  how is that any different from new human artist that study other artists work to learn a style or technique. In fact it used to be that the preferred way for painters to learn was to repeatedly copy paintings of masters.
  - manholio 4y ago
    What you and many other in the thread seem to be oblivious about is that algorithms are not people. Yes, it may come as a shock to autistic engineers, but the fact that a machine can do something to what a person does does not warant it equal protection under the law. Copyright, and laws in general, exists to protect the human members of society not some abstract representation of them.
    - weknowbetter 4y ago
      It seems like you're using "autistic" as an insult here. If that's not your intention you might want to edit this comment to use different verbage.
      - manholio 4y ago
        What do you mean, autism is well established as a personality trait that diminishes empathy and the ability to understand other people's desires and emotions, while having a strong affinity to things, for example machines and algorithms. Legislation is driven by people who are, on aggregate, not autistic. So it's entirely appropriate to presume that a person not understanding how that process works is indeed autistic, especially if they suggest machines are subjects of law by analogy with human beings. It's not that autists are bad people, they are just outliers in the political spectrum, as you can see from the complete disconnect of up-voted AI-related comments on Hacker News, where autistic engineers are clearly over-represented, versus just about any venue where other professionals, such as painters or musicians, congregate. Just try to suggest to them that a corporation has the right to use their work for free and profit from it while leaving them unemployed, because the algorithm the corporation uses to exploit them is in some abstract sense similar to how their brain works. That position is so for out on the spectrum that presuming a personality peculiarity of the emitter is the absolutely most charitable interpretation.
- rule72 4y ago
  This argument's pedantic and problematic for artists; take away a human's "dataset" and processes and they are also unable to produce a single original "pixel".
  - manholio 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - weknowbetter 4y ago
      I don't think that your phrasing is helpful or appropriate.
    - johannboehme 4y ago
      I've prepared a boiler-plate response for autistic nitpickers like yourself: https://cdn150.picsart.com/upscale-235459796047212.png?r1024x1024 https://cdn150.picsart.com/upscale-235459796047212.png?r1024...
- bobbruno 4y ago
  That is not true. The dataset is needed, the same way that examples are used by a person learning to draw. But the dataset alone is not capable of producing images not derived from any part of it (and there are many examples of SD results that seem so far to be wholly original), so you can’t reduce stable diffusion to being only derived from the dataset. It may “remember” and generate parts of images in the dataset - but that is a bug, not a feature. With enough prompt tweaking, it may even generate a fairly good copy of pre-existing work - which was what the prompt requested, so responsibility should lie on the prompt writer, not on SD. But the fact that it often generates new content, that didn’t exist before, or at least doesn’t breach the limits of fair use, goes against the argument made in the lawsuit.
  - manholio 4y ago
    The model can generate original images, yes, and those images might be fair use. But it can also generate near verbatim copies of the source works or substantial parts thereof, so the model itself is not fair use, it's a wholly derivative work. For example, if a publish a music remix tool with a massive database of existing music, creators might use to create collages that are original and fall under fair use. But the tool itself is not and requires permission from the rights owners.
- rsuelzer 4y ago
  So, is any sort of creation that relies upon copyrighted or patented works copyright infringement? Is any academic research or art that references brands or other creations illegal? This is such a clear case of fair use that it could be a textbook example.
yazaddaruvala 4y ago
> Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The law can do whatever its writers want. The law is mutable, so the answer to your question is “maybe”. Maybe SD will get outlawed for copyright reasons on a single image. The law and the courts have done sillier things.
- ghaff 4y ago
  All the handwringing about generative AI brings to mind the aphorism about genies returning to bottles. There can be lawsuits and laws--and there may even be cases where an output by chance or by tickling the input sufficiently looks very close to something in the training set. But anyone who thinks this technology will be banned in some manner is... mistaken.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    So as a code author I am pretty upset about Copilot specifically, and it seems like SD is similar (hadn't heard before about DeviantArt doing the same as what GitHub did). But I agree with this take: the tech is here, it's going to be used, and it's not going to be shut down by a lawsuit. Nor should it, frankly. What I object to is not the AI itself, or even that my code has been used to train it. It's the copyright for me but not for thee way that it's been deployed. Does GitHub/Microsoft's assertion that training sidesteps licensing apply to GitHub/Microsoft's own code? Do they want to allow (a hypothetical) FSFPilot to be trained on their proprietary source? Have they actually trained Copilot on their own source? If not, why not? I published my source subject to a license, and the force of that license is provided by my copyright. I'm happy to find other ways of doing things, but it has to be equitable. I'm not simply ceding my authorship to the latest commercial content grab.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I doubt Microsoft sees fragments of Windows source code as a particular crown jewel these days. That said, some of it is decades old code that was intended for the public to see (unlike, presumably, anything in a public GitHub repository). And some of it is presumably third-party code licensed to Microsoft that was likewise never intended for public viewing. So, while it would be a good gesture on the part of Microsoft to scan their own code--if they haven't done so--I could see why it might be problematic. (Just as training on private GitHub repos would be.) tl;dr I think there's a distinction between training on copyrighted but public content and private content.
chongli 4y ago
Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The software itself is not at issue here. If they had trained the network on public domain images then there’d be no lawsuit. The legal question to settle is whether it’s allowable to train (and use) a model on copyrighted images without permission from the artists. They may actually be successful at arguing that the outputs are either copies or derived works which would require paying the original artist for licenses.
- jdironman 4y ago
  Then I think any work of art or media inspired by past sources would fall into this category. It's a very grey line, and I haven't seen anyone or any case law put it into proper terms as of yet.
  - deely3 4y ago
    Does "inspired" equal to "learned by software neural network"?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Olivia Rodrigo is a good case study here. Good For You was so heavily inspired by Paramore that Hayley Williams was given songwriter credit despite having no involvement in its making. So humans can already run afoul of copyright this way, the bar for NNs might end up lower.

manholio 4y ago

But they are not original works, they are wholly derived works of the training data set. Take that data set away and the algorithm is unable to produce a single original pixel. The fact that the derivation involves millions of works as opposed to a single one is immaterial for the copyright issue.

realusername 4y ago
The training data set is indeed mandatory but that doesn't make the resulting model a derivative in itself. In fact the training is specifically made to remove derivatives.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  Go to stablediffusionweb.com and enter "a person like biden" into the box. You will see a picture exactly like President Biden. That picture will have been derived from the trained images of Joe Biden. That cannot be in dispute.
  - realusername 4y ago
    Just because it generates you an image like Biden still does not make it a derivative either. You can draw Biden yourself if you're talented and it's not considered a derivative of anything.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      There is no need for rhetorical games. The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. In some cases the produced images contain pixel level details from the originals. [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
      - realusername 4y ago
        > The actual issue is that Stable Diffusion does create derivatives of copyrighted works. Nothing points to that, in fact even in this website they had to lie on how stablediffusion actually works, maybe a sign that their argument isn't really solid enough. > [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect and will be improved.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > You realize those are considered defects of the model right? Sure, this model isn't perfect. You can call copying of input as a defect, but why are you simultaneously arguing that it doesn't occur?
        realusername 4y ago
        I don't call these defects copying either but overfitting characteristics. Usually they are there because there's a massive amount of near-identical images. It's both undesirable and not relevant to this kind of lawsuit.
    - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
      Correction: if you draw a copy of Biden and it happens to overlap enough with someone’s copyright of a drawing or image of Biden, you did create a derivative (whether you knew it or not).
      - 4y ago
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    You've made some errors in reasoning. First, there is a legal definition of a "derivative work" and there is an artistic notion of a "derivative work". If the two of us both draw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, artistically we have both derived the drawing based on the original statue. However, neither of these drawings in relation to the original sculpture nor the other drawing is legally considered a derivative work. Let's think about a cartoonish caricature of Joe Biden. What "makes up" Joe Biden? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu0lUxxVF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu0lUxxVF4 To what extent are these "constituent parts" present in every image of Joe Biden? All of them? Is the latent space not something that is instead hidden in all images of Joe Biden? Can an image of Joe Biden be made by anyone that is not derived from these "high order" characteristics of what is recognizable as Joe Biden across a number of different renderings from disparate individuals?
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      I can draw Biden, yes, but SD can only draw Biden by deriving it's output from the images on which it was trained. This is a simple tautology, because SD cannot draw Biden without having been trained on that data. SD both creates derivative works and also sometimes creates pixel level copies from portions of the trained data.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        Yes, and we are now using the artistic definition of “derived” and not the legal definition. You cannot copyright “any image that resembles Joe Biden”.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        This isn't about what can be copyrighted but that there are copyrighted images being used without following the legal requirements.
      - bobbruno 4y ago
        Can you draw Biden without ever having seen him or a picture of him? So,why is it that you are not deriving but SD is?
  - rsuelzer 4y ago
    So is your mental image of Joe Biden, unless you know him personally.
forgotusername6 4y ago
If I were to take the first word from a thousand books and use it to write my own would I be guilty of copyright violations?
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  Words have a special carve out in copyright law / precedent. So much so that a whole other category of Intellectual Property exists called Trademarks to protect special words. But back to your point “if you were to take the first sentence from a thousand books and use it in your own book”, then yes based on my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright you would be in violation of IP laws.
  - basch 4y ago
    I doubt it would be a violation. Specifically fair use #3 "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." A sentence being a copyright violation would make every book review in the world illegal.
basch 4y ago
If I take a million copywritten images from magazines, cut them with scissors, and make a single collage, I would expect the resulting image to be fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, like self defense, where you justify your infringement. People are treating this like its a binary technical decision. Either it is or isn't a violation. Reality is that things are spectrums and judges judge. SD will likely be treated like a remix that sampled copywritten work, but just a tiny bit of each work, and sufficiently transformed it to create a new work.
- chongli 4y ago
  If I take a million copywritten images from magazines, cut them with scissors, and make a single collage, I would expect the resulting image to be fair use. That’s not how it works. Your collage would be fine if it was the only one since you used magazines you bought. Where you’d get into trouble is if you started printing copies of your collage and distributing them. In that case you’d be producing derived works and be on the hook for paying for licenses from the original authors.
  - basch 4y ago
    That’s not how fair use works. It’s not a binary switch where commercial derivatives automatically require licensing. Such a college would be ruled transformative and non competitive. Me having bought the magazines also has nothing to do with anything. Would apply equally if they were gifted or free or stolen.
williamcotton 4y ago
If I make software that randomly draws pixels on the screen then we can say for a fact that no copyrighted images were used. If that software happens to output an image that is in violation of copyright then it is not the fault of the model. Also, if you ran this software in your home and did nothing with the image, then there's no violation of copyright either. It only becomes an issue when you choose to publish the image. The key part of copyright is when someone publishes an image as their own. That they copy an image doesn't matter at all. It's what they DO with the image that matters! The courts will most likely make a similar distinction between the model, the outputs of the model, and when an individual publishes the outputs of the model. This would be that the copyright violation occurs when an individual publishes an image. Now, if tools like Stable Diffusion are constantly putting users at risk of unknowingly violating copyrights then this tool becomes less appealing. In this case it would make commercial sense to help users know when they are in violation of copyright. It would also make sense to update our copyright catalogues to facilitate these kinds of fingerprints.
smegger001 4y ago
how is that any different from new human artist that study other artists work to learn a style or technique. In fact it used to be that the preferred way for painters to learn was to repeatedly copy paintings of masters.
- manholio 4y ago
  What you and many other in the thread seem to be oblivious about is that algorithms are not people. Yes, it may come as a shock to autistic engineers, but the fact that a machine can do something to what a person does does not warant it equal protection under the law. Copyright, and laws in general, exists to protect the human members of society not some abstract representation of them.
  - weknowbetter 4y ago
    It seems like you're using "autistic" as an insult here. If that's not your intention you might want to edit this comment to use different verbage.
    - manholio 4y ago
      What do you mean, autism is well established as a personality trait that diminishes empathy and the ability to understand other people's desires and emotions, while having a strong affinity to things, for example machines and algorithms. Legislation is driven by people who are, on aggregate, not autistic. So it's entirely appropriate to presume that a person not understanding how that process works is indeed autistic, especially if they suggest machines are subjects of law by analogy with human beings. It's not that autists are bad people, they are just outliers in the political spectrum, as you can see from the complete disconnect of up-voted AI-related comments on Hacker News, where autistic engineers are clearly over-represented, versus just about any venue where other professionals, such as painters or musicians, congregate. Just try to suggest to them that a corporation has the right to use their work for free and profit from it while leaving them unemployed, because the algorithm the corporation uses to exploit them is in some abstract sense similar to how their brain works. That position is so for out on the spectrum that presuming a personality peculiarity of the emitter is the absolutely most charitable interpretation.
rule72 4y ago
This argument's pedantic and problematic for artists; take away a human's "dataset" and processes and they are also unable to produce a single original "pixel".
- manholio 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - weknowbetter 4y ago
    I don't think that your phrasing is helpful or appropriate.
  - johannboehme 4y ago
    I've prepared a boiler-plate response for autistic nitpickers like yourself: https://cdn150.picsart.com/upscale-235459796047212.png?r1024x1024 https://cdn150.picsart.com/upscale-235459796047212.png?r1024...
bobbruno 4y ago
That is not true. The dataset is needed, the same way that examples are used by a person learning to draw. But the dataset alone is not capable of producing images not derived from any part of it (and there are many examples of SD results that seem so far to be wholly original), so you can’t reduce stable diffusion to being only derived from the dataset. It may “remember” and generate parts of images in the dataset - but that is a bug, not a feature. With enough prompt tweaking, it may even generate a fairly good copy of pre-existing work - which was what the prompt requested, so responsibility should lie on the prompt writer, not on SD. But the fact that it often generates new content, that didn’t exist before, or at least doesn’t breach the limits of fair use, goes against the argument made in the lawsuit.
- manholio 4y ago
  The model can generate original images, yes, and those images might be fair use. But it can also generate near verbatim copies of the source works or substantial parts thereof, so the model itself is not fair use, it's a wholly derivative work. For example, if a publish a music remix tool with a massive database of existing music, creators might use to create collages that are original and fall under fair use. But the tool itself is not and requires permission from the rights owners.
rsuelzer 4y ago
So, is any sort of creation that relies upon copyrighted or patented works copyright infringement? Is any academic research or art that references brands or other creations illegal? This is such a clear case of fair use that it could be a textbook example.

yazaddaruvala 4y ago

> Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The law can do whatever its writers want. The law is mutable, so the answer to your question is “maybe”. Maybe SD will get outlawed for copyright reasons on a single image. The law and the courts have done sillier things.

ghaff 4y ago
All the handwringing about generative AI brings to mind the aphorism about genies returning to bottles. There can be lawsuits and laws--and there may even be cases where an output by chance or by tickling the input sufficiently looks very close to something in the training set. But anyone who thinks this technology will be banned in some manner is... mistaken.
- b3morales 4y ago
  So as a code author I am pretty upset about Copilot specifically, and it seems like SD is similar (hadn't heard before about DeviantArt doing the same as what GitHub did). But I agree with this take: the tech is here, it's going to be used, and it's not going to be shut down by a lawsuit. Nor should it, frankly. What I object to is not the AI itself, or even that my code has been used to train it. It's the copyright for me but not for thee way that it's been deployed. Does GitHub/Microsoft's assertion that training sidesteps licensing apply to GitHub/Microsoft's own code? Do they want to allow (a hypothetical) FSFPilot to be trained on their proprietary source? Have they actually trained Copilot on their own source? If not, why not? I published my source subject to a license, and the force of that license is provided by my copyright. I'm happy to find other ways of doing things, but it has to be equitable. I'm not simply ceding my authorship to the latest commercial content grab.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I doubt Microsoft sees fragments of Windows source code as a particular crown jewel these days. That said, some of it is decades old code that was intended for the public to see (unlike, presumably, anything in a public GitHub repository). And some of it is presumably third-party code licensed to Microsoft that was likewise never intended for public viewing. So, while it would be a good gesture on the part of Microsoft to scan their own code--if they haven't done so--I could see why it might be problematic. (Just as training on private GitHub repos would be.) tl;dr I think there's a distinction between training on copyrighted but public content and private content.

chongli 4y ago

Oh, one image is enough to apply copyright as if it were a patent, to ban a process that makes original works most of the time? The software itself is not at issue here. If they had trained the network on public domain images then there’d be no lawsuit. The legal question to settle is whether it’s allowable to train (and use) a model on copyrighted images without permission from the artists. They may actually be successful at arguing that the outputs are either copies or derived works which would require paying the original artist for licenses.

jdironman 4y ago
Then I think any work of art or media inspired by past sources would fall into this category. It's a very grey line, and I haven't seen anyone or any case law put it into proper terms as of yet.
- deely3 4y ago
  Does "inspired" equal to "learned by software neural network"?
- Spivak 4y ago
  Olivia Rodrigo is a good case study here. Good For You was so heavily inspired by Paramore that Hayley Williams was given songwriter credit despite having no involvement in its making. So humans can already run afoul of copyright this way, the bar for NNs might end up lower.