3 ms·
>It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond. A recreation of a piece of art does not mean a cop
by huggingrear 4y ago
>It's pretty trivial to recreate famous works like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night or Monet's Water Lily Pond.
A recreation of a piece of art does not mean a copy, I've personally seen hundreds of recreations of Edvard Munch's 'The Scream', all of them perfectly legal.
Even in a massively overtrained model, it is practically impossible to create a 1:1 copy of a piece of art the model was trained upon.
And of course that would be a pointless exercise to begin with, why would anyone want to generate 1:1 copies (or anything near that) of existing images ?
The whole 'magic' of Stable Diffusion is that you can create new works of art in the combined styles of art, photography etc that it has been trained on.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoA work doesn't have to be identical to be considered a derivative work, which is why we also don't consider every JPEG a newly copyrighted image distinct from the source material. As an example of a plausible scenario where copyright might actually be violated, consider this: an NGO wants images on their website. They type in something like 'afghan girl' or 'struggling child' and unknowingly use the recreations of the famous photographs they get.