> I didn't steal your car, right? Comparing theft to "intellectual" property that can be trivially copied often doesn't make sense and can lead one to wrong co

> I didn't steal your car, right? Comparing theft to "intellectual" property that can be trivially copied often doesn't make sense and can lead one to wrong conclusions. > So now software piracy is fine right? Finally something almost on topic. But that's just begging the question. And it's not software we're talking about, but images. Training neural networks on massive datasets is a pretty new phenomenon, I don't think anyone can say definitely whether it's copyright infringement or not, because... > This needs to be tested in court. Exactly. I'm glad we agree on at least something. Historically the UK courts have taken a (overly IMHO) strict attitude (eg. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57171429-4dea-425d-ac59-5c92cbf63941 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=57171429-4dea... ) to copyrights so I'd guess the outcome won't be too favorable to Stable Diffusion, but it wouldn't it be funny to read your assertions in case they win.