5 ms·

This is a strange take. Folks who choose to use a CC license do so because they want their work in the public and to be "Use(d) & Remix(ed)" https://creativeco

This is a strange take. Folks who choose to use a CC license do so because they want their work in the public and to be "Use(d) & Remix(ed)" https://creativecommons.org/use-remix/ https://creativecommons.org/use-remix/. The creative commons is very clearly designed to encourage reuse, remix and sharing, and the practice of suing over not following terms to the letter is a gross warping of the license that's happened over the last few years with copyright trolls. The Creative Commons organization has explicitly called this out. [1] But I would argue that Stable Diffusion with the open-sourcing of their model weights, and use of the LAION dataset which is released under CC-BY 4.0, would likely meet both the letter and intent of the license. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC_Attribution-ShareAl... 1 - https://creativecommons.org/2022/02/08/copyleft-trolls/ https://creativecommons.org/2022/02/08/copyleft-trolls/

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
Are you trying to tell us here that if someone refuses to conform to the terms of my Creative Commons license, such as attribution, that I would be wrong to sue them over copyright violation? Folks who use specific CC licenses want the licensees to abide by those terms, and we can legally enforce that compliance. Content creators are not copyright trolls, so please do not tar them all with the same brush.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  you could sue them but there are basically no damages, so it wouldn't matter.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  Of course not all content creators are trolls. The jump to sue and the assumption that all of this is somehow victimizing everyone who has released content in the CC license is troll-like thinking. Like I said before, I believe there's a strong argument that Stability AI / LAION's use of CC-{BY/SA/ND} is likely allowed under the terms of all CC licenses due to the works being shared without alteration and with attribution, released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (LAION) and the Stable Diffusion model being released under a permissive license (CreativeML Open RAIL-M). The real question is if the images generated by the models need to provide attribution to every single weight involved in generating that image. That's a lot more complicated and unclear, but quickly gets into questions like "Should artistic style be copyrightable?" and "What amount of source material is required to constitute a copyrighted work?". But as of right now, I don't see how any of this is violating the letter or intent of CC 4.0
- shagie 4y ago
  If you have registered your copyright, you can sue for punitive damages. If you haven't registered your copyright, you can sue for actual damages which includes the money you lost (including potential money) and maybe the money gained by the person using the work. You will need to prove that the work generated by stable diffusion is an infringement of your work and that stable diffusion is liable (this will be challenging). You could also try suing the person using the work for profit (it will need to be for profit because otherwise all three points of "what you can sue for" is $0). Remember to register the images that you create with the appropriate copyright office if you wish to be able to sue and have some teeth (and have a better than zero chance of collecting lawyers fees from the other party) This can be done as a "group registration" to do bulk and doesn't need to be done one at a time - https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/ and https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/
chasing 4y ago
Using a Creative Commons license doesn't mean "do whatever you want with my work #YOLO!"
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  CC0 does.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
CC-BY 4.0 requires attribution. CC 0 is the only Creative Commons license that does not require attribution. I put my music online under a CC license because I want people to be able to play it freely, use it in videos, remix it, cover it, include it in a compilation. I'd like for people to be able to do anything with my music except claim to be the original creator.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago

Are you trying to tell us here that if someone refuses to conform to the terms of my Creative Commons license, such as attribution, that I would be wrong to sue them over copyright violation? Folks who use specific CC licenses want the licensees to abide by those terms, and we can legally enforce that compliance. Content creators are not copyright trolls, so please do not tar them all with the same brush.

LegitShady 4y ago
you could sue them but there are basically no damages, so it wouldn't matter.
celestialcheese 4y ago
Of course not all content creators are trolls. The jump to sue and the assumption that all of this is somehow victimizing everyone who has released content in the CC license is troll-like thinking. Like I said before, I believe there's a strong argument that Stability AI / LAION's use of CC-{BY/SA/ND} is likely allowed under the terms of all CC licenses due to the works being shared without alteration and with attribution, released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (LAION) and the Stable Diffusion model being released under a permissive license (CreativeML Open RAIL-M). The real question is if the images generated by the models need to provide attribution to every single weight involved in generating that image. That's a lot more complicated and unclear, but quickly gets into questions like "Should artistic style be copyrightable?" and "What amount of source material is required to constitute a copyrighted work?". But as of right now, I don't see how any of this is violating the letter or intent of CC 4.0
shagie 4y ago
If you have registered your copyright, you can sue for punitive damages. If you haven't registered your copyright, you can sue for actual damages which includes the money you lost (including potential money) and maybe the money gained by the person using the work. You will need to prove that the work generated by stable diffusion is an infringement of your work and that stable diffusion is liable (this will be challenging). You could also try suing the person using the work for profit (it will need to be for profit because otherwise all three points of "what you can sue for" is $0). Remember to register the images that you create with the appropriate copyright office if you wish to be able to sue and have some teeth (and have a better than zero chance of collecting lawyers fees from the other party) This can be done as a "group registration" to do bulk and doesn't need to be done one at a time - https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/ and https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/ https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/

chasing 4y ago

Using a Creative Commons license doesn't mean "do whatever you want with my work #YOLO!"

fknorangesite 4y ago
CC0 does.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

CC-BY 4.0 requires attribution. CC 0 is the only Creative Commons license that does not require attribution. I put my music online under a CC license because I want people to be able to play it freely, use it in videos, remix it, cover it, include it in a compilation. I'd like for people to be able to do anything with my music except claim to be the original creator.