2 ms·
I think it goes without saying that everything I write is my opinion, and what you write is yours :) > substantial amount of non-infringing uses Your uses may
by anileated 4y ago
I think it goes without saying that everything I write is my opinion, and what you write is yours :)
> substantial amount of non-infringing uses
Your uses may or may not be infringing, but you can use something that infringes to create something that does not infringe. The infringement is at least done by OpenAI etc. when creating the tool you use, even if your use of the tool does not infringe.
- williamcotton 4y agoThat’s not how courts have ever interpreted things and this isn’t just my opinion. One of us is running into a brick wall in this conversation and that brick wall is “has read related case and statutory law”. What I’ve been doing is pretending we’re having an objective conversation about copyright so logically I’m treating this closer to a mock trial. I’m not actually sure what you’re doing but I would recommend referencing, you know, the extensive evidence you have to support claims of what is or isn’t infringing.
- williamcotton 4y agoNow here is logically why what you’re saying is incoherent with regards to copyright: I can train my own Stable Diffusion. So can you. So can everyone! And we can do so in the privacy of our own private properties and without anyone knowing what we’re doing with all of the images coming through our connections to our ISPs. No one would really know how if anyone was creating images with or without Stable Diffusion. People would need to bring an image that is significant evidence of copyright infringement in order to get a court to issue a warrant to search for Stable Diffusion in a certain premises… but they can’t because the suspected image doesn’t look anything like the plaintiff’s to begin with.