4 ms·

Going image -> vector space -> image feels very much like compression for the purpose of copyright. Like a lower quality JPEG of some image still has the same c

Going image -> vector space -> image feels very much like compression for the purpose of copyright. Like a lower quality JPEG of some image still has the same copyright properties of the original. Something about going image -> prompt -> image feels like it "subverts" this somehow, even if the prompt is hyper-optimized to recreate the original image. Obviously, this is just my feel/impression of it, the real test is how a jury feels about it. The next few years will be really interesting in exposing that this is a really massive gray area.

Ensorceled 4y ago
> Something about going image -> prompt -> image feels like it "subverts" this somehow, That's only because you understand the algorithm in the first example. At a jury trial most, if not all, of the jurors will find both methods equally opaque and, I believe, will treat them as equivalent.
- joxel 4y ago
  This is a great example of how dumb our legal system is.
- int_19h 4y ago
  I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using words does not create a derived work. That is something a good lawyer could make a show of, even to the point of having an artist draw a picture from such a description. The vectors are much more opaque because there's no straightforward human equivalent.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    > I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using words does not create a derived work. Describing to a human. Describing it to stable Diffusion is very different. If you ask for a starry night, you get van Gogh's starry night, sometime with the original frame. A prompt can easily trigger it to make a derivative work from something in its training set, and it often does. Any competent expert will tell that to the jury and easily demonstrate it again and again.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    My point is that if there is a prompt that results in a picture that is a nearly identical copy, the average jury member is going to think "yep, that's a copy". Trying to explain how that "isn't really a copy" by explaining AI concepts isn't going to win the day, not when they can SEE the copy.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      If the textual description in and of itself is already "not a copy", though, the question of whether the image produced from that textual description is a copy shouldn't arise, no? It's not like the jury is ruling on random questions; they're going to give answers to whatever the judge puts in front of them.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  > That's only because you understand the algorithm in the first example. I can start with van Gogh's Starry Night, get the prompt "starry night, van Gogh" and get Starry Night back. I'm using Starry Night as an example because Stable Diffusion consistently reproduces it, sometimes with the original frame, even with vaguely related prompts. I'd say the jury will be making the right decision. Especially if the original image was part of the training set.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    What you’re missing is that the Stable Diffusion defense will roll out example after example of non-infringing cases, like inpainting to remove power lines from a vacation photo. They will be trying to establish significant non-infringing commercial use in order to establish that the tool is not specifically designed to get around copyright. A tool that specifically advertises itself at getting around copyright is going to have a very hard time in court…

Ensorceled 4y ago

> Something about going image -> prompt -> image feels like it "subverts" this somehow, That's only because you understand the algorithm in the first example. At a jury trial most, if not all, of the jurors will find both methods equally opaque and, I believe, will treat them as equivalent.

joxel 4y ago
This is a great example of how dumb our legal system is.
int_19h 4y ago
I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using words does not create a derived work. That is something a good lawyer could make a show of, even to the point of having an artist draw a picture from such a description. The vectors are much more opaque because there's no straightforward human equivalent.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  > I think the jurors would be aware (or at least acceptive) of the notion that describing a picture using words does not create a derived work. Describing to a human. Describing it to stable Diffusion is very different. If you ask for a starry night, you get van Gogh's starry night, sometime with the original frame. A prompt can easily trigger it to make a derivative work from something in its training set, and it often does. Any competent expert will tell that to the jury and easily demonstrate it again and again.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  My point is that if there is a prompt that results in a picture that is a nearly identical copy, the average jury member is going to think "yep, that's a copy". Trying to explain how that "isn't really a copy" by explaining AI concepts isn't going to win the day, not when they can SEE the copy.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    If the textual description in and of itself is already "not a copy", though, the question of whether the image produced from that textual description is a copy shouldn't arise, no? It's not like the jury is ruling on random questions; they're going to give answers to whatever the judge puts in front of them.
oldgradstudent 4y ago
> That's only because you understand the algorithm in the first example. I can start with van Gogh's Starry Night, get the prompt "starry night, van Gogh" and get Starry Night back. I'm using Starry Night as an example because Stable Diffusion consistently reproduces it, sometimes with the original frame, even with vaguely related prompts. I'd say the jury will be making the right decision. Especially if the original image was part of the training set.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  What you’re missing is that the Stable Diffusion defense will roll out example after example of non-infringing cases, like inpainting to remove power lines from a vacation photo. They will be trying to establish significant non-infringing commercial use in order to establish that the tool is not specifically designed to get around copyright. A tool that specifically advertises itself at getting around copyright is going to have a very hard time in court…