6 ms·

Another counterargument is that these models do not generate anything without a prompt. So in a way it’s like a very smart photoshop: if you, a designer, use to

Another counterargument is that these models do not generate anything without a prompt. So in a way it’s like a very smart photoshop: if you, a designer, use tools to create a character that resembles Mickey Mouse - this is on you, not the tool. It’s going to be interesting to hear this being argued in court.

karpierz 4y ago
A password-protected zip file containing Mickey Mouse photos also doesn't produce copyrighted material without the right prompt. Yet, the distributor of the zip file is definitely responsible for copyright violation. And to preempt a likely counterargument, intent is not a required factor for establishing copyright violation.
- limitedsupply 4y ago
  The important distinction is that the model does not contain a copy of a copyrighted material. It contains data trained on copyrighted material (like our brains).
  - karpierz 4y ago
    You're making a distinction that isn't reflected in copyright law. If I take a JPEG of Mickey Mouse and then turn it into a PNG, it's not a "copy", as the bits are different. But it still contains copyrighted material. You can try to argue that the bits of PNG itself aren't an image of Mickey Mouse, but rather the algorithm that reads the PNG produces an image of Mickey Mouse. But that isn't really a relevant distinction in so far as copyright is concerned. In addition, this statement is false: > The important distinction is that the model does not contain a copy of a copyrighted material. It has been shown repeatedly that the model produces copies of training data. The copies are of course not stored as JPEGs/PNGs in the model, but they are retrievable from the model, given the correct password (prompt).
    - limitedsupply 4y ago
      Could you provide evidence of your last statement? I haven’t seen these models produce actual copies of any art (can’t imagine that’s an option in general). These models do not contain copies. One way to describe the data is they contain a statistical breakdown of the artwork, which is substantially different from a JPEG -> PNG conversion you mention.
      - karpierz 4y ago
        > Could you provide evidence of your last statement? I haven’t seen these models produce actual copies of any art (can’t imagine that’s an option in general). Here's a whole paper, complete with citations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf > These models do not contain copies. One way to describe the data is they contain a statistical breakdown of the artwork, which is substantially different from a JPEG -> PNG conversion you mention. I don't understand the distinction you're making. What legally separates a "statistical breakdown" representation from a zip file representation, JPEG representation, PNG representation?
        limitedsupply 4y ago
        As I anticipated, you are referencing research that does not show exact copies being generated by Stable Diffusion. Do "semantically equivalent" images infringe on copyright? I would argue that they do not. We will see how this plays out in court. Food for thought: if I write instructions for generating an SVG of a black square, does my program contain copyrighted material (Malevich's Black Square)? You and I could argue about that, but you will probably quote more research that disproves your own point. So let's skip that.
        karpierz 4y ago
        > As I anticipated, you are referencing research that does not show exact copies being generated by Stable Diffusion. Do "semantically equivalent" images infringe on copyright? I would argue that they do not. We will see how this plays out in court. If you're convinced that a photo of Mickey Mouse with slightly larger ears, or slightly reddish pants isn't copyright infringement, then sure, neither is any of this stuff. It would also mean that republishing copyrighted images with lossy compression algorithm (IE, JPEGs) would also not violate copyright. I would suggest looking at the actual laws around copyright instead of relying on what you feel copyright should be.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  > intent is not a required factor for establishing copyright violation. What you mean to say is that if someone just so happens to write a story that is significantly similar to another work that their intent doesn't matter... most importantly their intent is unknowable. This doesn't mean that courts will not be interested in the intended use of specific mechanical tools such as VCRs, computers, and statistical models. Let's tease apart this "zip file containing Mickey Mouse photos" because it seems to be from where your errors in reasoning stem. Here is a website that gives you instructions on how to draw Mickey Mouse: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps004/fall01/examples/mickey/Step1.html https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps004/fall01/examples/mickey/St... These instructions are not violation of copyright because they draw a picture of Mickey Mouse. Copyright does not protect the mere existence of an image. Copyright gives a monopoly on distributing copies of that image to the rights holder. Not the idea of the image, not the instructions that could lead to the image, not the 1s and 0s that make up the image. As I've mentioned before, a t-shirt with the 1s and 0s that make up the zip file that contains those photos is not in violation of copyrights on those images. You'll notice that CafePress still has t-shirts with the DeCSS code for sale: https://www.cafepress.com/+,954530397 https://www.cafepress.com/+,954530397 Imagine a mathematical formula that when plotted in polar coordinates draws Mickey Mouse. The mathematical formula is a fact and it cannot be copyrighted. There's another step required for copyright infringement: Someone renders the image and distributes copies of the rendered image.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    I mentioned VCRs specifically because in 1976 Universal Studios sued Sony over the claims that because Sony manufactured a device that could be used for copyright infringement the company was liable for infringement committed by consumers of Betamax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... Take a note of the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling: > The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home.[7] [...] [W]hen one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact... that the entire work is reproduced... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. Stable Diffusion is also capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses. It is to be expected that the lower courts will continue to follow the precedence set by the Supreme Court that there is a clear distinction between a mechanical device capable of making copies and the distribution of those copies. To put in the context of Stable Diffusion, this is why legal experts keep saying there are two things to consider: The model, which is almost guaranteed to be protected by fair use, and the outputs of the model, in which the users of the model are liable for any copyright infringement.
williamcotton 4y ago
Exactly. The model only produces copyright protected material when the operator of the model directs the sampler towards the part of the latent space that contains that material. The user is liable. The user is also liable for using a photocopier to create and sell copies of someone else’s work. Anyone can photocopy anything they want and plaster their own walls with that work. In all cases the manufacturer of the photocopier is not liable… Now, if these tools consistently plagued users with being liable for copyright violations then these tools become more trouble than they are worth.

karpierz 4y ago

A password-protected zip file containing Mickey Mouse photos also doesn't produce copyrighted material without the right prompt. Yet, the distributor of the zip file is definitely responsible for copyright violation. And to preempt a likely counterargument, intent is not a required factor for establishing copyright violation.

limitedsupply 4y ago
The important distinction is that the model does not contain a copy of a copyrighted material. It contains data trained on copyrighted material (like our brains).
- karpierz 4y ago
  You're making a distinction that isn't reflected in copyright law. If I take a JPEG of Mickey Mouse and then turn it into a PNG, it's not a "copy", as the bits are different. But it still contains copyrighted material. You can try to argue that the bits of PNG itself aren't an image of Mickey Mouse, but rather the algorithm that reads the PNG produces an image of Mickey Mouse. But that isn't really a relevant distinction in so far as copyright is concerned. In addition, this statement is false: > The important distinction is that the model does not contain a copy of a copyrighted material. It has been shown repeatedly that the model produces copies of training data. The copies are of course not stored as JPEGs/PNGs in the model, but they are retrievable from the model, given the correct password (prompt).
  - limitedsupply 4y ago
    Could you provide evidence of your last statement? I haven’t seen these models produce actual copies of any art (can’t imagine that’s an option in general). These models do not contain copies. One way to describe the data is they contain a statistical breakdown of the artwork, which is substantially different from a JPEG -> PNG conversion you mention.
    - karpierz 4y ago
      > Could you provide evidence of your last statement? I haven’t seen these models produce actual copies of any art (can’t imagine that’s an option in general). Here's a whole paper, complete with citations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf > These models do not contain copies. One way to describe the data is they contain a statistical breakdown of the artwork, which is substantially different from a JPEG -> PNG conversion you mention. I don't understand the distinction you're making. What legally separates a "statistical breakdown" representation from a zip file representation, JPEG representation, PNG representation?
      - limitedsupply 4y ago
        As I anticipated, you are referencing research that does not show exact copies being generated by Stable Diffusion. Do "semantically equivalent" images infringe on copyright? I would argue that they do not. We will see how this plays out in court. Food for thought: if I write instructions for generating an SVG of a black square, does my program contain copyrighted material (Malevich's Black Square)? You and I could argue about that, but you will probably quote more research that disproves your own point. So let's skip that.
        karpierz 4y ago
        > As I anticipated, you are referencing research that does not show exact copies being generated by Stable Diffusion. Do "semantically equivalent" images infringe on copyright? I would argue that they do not. We will see how this plays out in court. If you're convinced that a photo of Mickey Mouse with slightly larger ears, or slightly reddish pants isn't copyright infringement, then sure, neither is any of this stuff. It would also mean that republishing copyrighted images with lossy compression algorithm (IE, JPEGs) would also not violate copyright. I would suggest looking at the actual laws around copyright instead of relying on what you feel copyright should be.
williamcotton 4y ago
> intent is not a required factor for establishing copyright violation. What you mean to say is that if someone just so happens to write a story that is significantly similar to another work that their intent doesn't matter... most importantly their intent is unknowable. This doesn't mean that courts will not be interested in the intended use of specific mechanical tools such as VCRs, computers, and statistical models. Let's tease apart this "zip file containing Mickey Mouse photos" because it seems to be from where your errors in reasoning stem. Here is a website that gives you instructions on how to draw Mickey Mouse: https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps004/fall01/examples/mickey/Step1.html https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps004/fall01/examples/mickey/St... These instructions are not violation of copyright because they draw a picture of Mickey Mouse. Copyright does not protect the mere existence of an image. Copyright gives a monopoly on distributing copies of that image to the rights holder. Not the idea of the image, not the instructions that could lead to the image, not the 1s and 0s that make up the image. As I've mentioned before, a t-shirt with the 1s and 0s that make up the zip file that contains those photos is not in violation of copyrights on those images. You'll notice that CafePress still has t-shirts with the DeCSS code for sale: https://www.cafepress.com/+,954530397 https://www.cafepress.com/+,954530397 Imagine a mathematical formula that when plotted in polar coordinates draws Mickey Mouse. The mathematical formula is a fact and it cannot be copyrighted. There's another step required for copyright infringement: Someone renders the image and distributes copies of the rendered image.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I mentioned VCRs specifically because in 1976 Universal Studios sued Sony over the claims that because Sony manufactured a device that could be used for copyright infringement the company was liable for infringement committed by consumers of Betamax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... Take a note of the majority opinion in the Supreme Court ruling: > The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home.[7] [...] [W]hen one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact... that the entire work is reproduced... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. Stable Diffusion is also capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses. It is to be expected that the lower courts will continue to follow the precedence set by the Supreme Court that there is a clear distinction between a mechanical device capable of making copies and the distribution of those copies. To put in the context of Stable Diffusion, this is why legal experts keep saying there are two things to consider: The model, which is almost guaranteed to be protected by fair use, and the outputs of the model, in which the users of the model are liable for any copyright infringement.

williamcotton 4y ago

Exactly. The model only produces copyright protected material when the operator of the model directs the sampler towards the part of the latent space that contains that material. The user is liable. The user is also liable for using a photocopier to create and sell copies of someone else’s work. Anyone can photocopy anything they want and plaster their own walls with that work. In all cases the manufacturer of the photocopier is not liable… Now, if these tools consistently plagued users with being liable for copyright violations then these tools become more trouble than they are worth.