5 ms·

It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.

by friedman23 4y ago

hansihe 4y ago
We have no idea if images by Stable Diffusion violates copyright, there is no legal precedent.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Technically we do have examples of stable diffusion violating copyright, it will generate some exact clone images if you give it the right prompt and that image exists a few hundred times in the training data.
  - yosame 4y ago
    Just because stable diffusion can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean it only does.
  - MacsHeadroom 4y ago
    For something like 11 images which were accidentally repeated hundreds of times in the training data this is true. They're more the exception that proves the rule.
coastermug 4y ago
Incidentally, copyright law etc on fonts is very interesting. Many places license their fonts via in-page JavaScript. However, I believe that such a protection against the font designer doesn’t necessarily apply if for instance you use the font to create a logo. ( I’m sure I’ve missed some nuance here.)
josephg 4y ago
That’s a sloppy answer. Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now. That’s kind of the whole point of this debate. Should we change the laws and if so, how?
- avereveard 4y ago
  Copyright already cover characters and stories. Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing. I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition already without violating the content owner copyright. Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. Are there cases where an ai and a human can generate the same media but which result in the media having different legality?
  - josephg 4y ago
    > Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. I don't think lawyers would agree with you at all. > Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted My understanding is that there isn't a legal consensus on whether or not thats true. Copyright law wasn't written with AI generated art in mind. For a work to be copyrightable, my understanding is that it requires that you can make a "sweat off my brow" argument. Ie, you had to work to create something. Does an AI count? We don't know. Or to put it in other terms, we haven't (collectively) decided as a society whether it should be copyrightable. On the other side, "fair use" arguments are also at play here. If I train a 1bn parameter model on 5bn images, I could probably make an argument that 1/5th of a f16 probably constitutes fair use of copyrighted work. If that argument holds, I can train my model with impunity on any amount of copyrighted work so long as my model is small and the number of training examples is large. Will that argument sway a court room? I have no idea. Is that fair? I don't know! The law is decided by people. And we haven't had AIs like stable diffusion and ChatGPT before, so the laws haven't been written with this stuff in mind. There isn't even a legal precedent yet for how the current laws should apply to AI art. Speculating is fun, but speculating on how a judge will apply old laws to a totally novel problem is a fool's errand. If you want to read about fun edge cases to copyright law, look up the history of copyright law for maps (can facts be copyrighted?) and how that interacts with trap streets. This stuff is hairy and complicated even for lawyers. As an outsider, boldly claiming that copyright law is simple only demonstrates that you don't understand law. It'd be like a lawyer boldly arguing (with no knowledge) that compilers are simple.
fastball 4y ago
Stable Diffusion isn't violating copyright for the same reason artists aren't violating copyright when they look at a bunch of images and make something similar.

It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.

hansihe 4y ago

We have no idea if images by Stable Diffusion violates copyright, there is no legal precedent.

bioemerl 4y ago
Technically we do have examples of stable diffusion violating copyright, it will generate some exact clone images if you give it the right prompt and that image exists a few hundred times in the training data.
- yosame 4y ago
  Just because stable diffusion can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean it only does.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  For something like 11 images which were accidentally repeated hundreds of times in the training data this is true. They're more the exception that proves the rule.

coastermug 4y ago

Incidentally, copyright law etc on fonts is very interesting. Many places license their fonts via in-page JavaScript. However, I believe that such a protection against the font designer doesn’t necessarily apply if for instance you use the font to create a logo. ( I’m sure I’ve missed some nuance here.)

josephg 4y ago

That’s a sloppy answer. Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now. That’s kind of the whole point of this debate. Should we change the laws and if so, how?

avereveard 4y ago
Copyright already cover characters and stories. Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing. I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition already without violating the content owner copyright. Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. Are there cases where an ai and a human can generate the same media but which result in the media having different legality?
- josephg 4y ago
  > Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. I don't think lawyers would agree with you at all. > Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted My understanding is that there isn't a legal consensus on whether or not thats true. Copyright law wasn't written with AI generated art in mind. For a work to be copyrightable, my understanding is that it requires that you can make a "sweat off my brow" argument. Ie, you had to work to create something. Does an AI count? We don't know. Or to put it in other terms, we haven't (collectively) decided as a society whether it should be copyrightable. On the other side, "fair use" arguments are also at play here. If I train a 1bn parameter model on 5bn images, I could probably make an argument that 1/5th of a f16 probably constitutes fair use of copyrighted work. If that argument holds, I can train my model with impunity on any amount of copyrighted work so long as my model is small and the number of training examples is large. Will that argument sway a court room? I have no idea. Is that fair? I don't know! The law is decided by people. And we haven't had AIs like stable diffusion and ChatGPT before, so the laws haven't been written with this stuff in mind. There isn't even a legal precedent yet for how the current laws should apply to AI art. Speculating is fun, but speculating on how a judge will apply old laws to a totally novel problem is a fool's errand. If you want to read about fun edge cases to copyright law, look up the history of copyright law for maps (can facts be copyrighted?) and how that interacts with trap streets. This stuff is hairy and complicated even for lawyers. As an outsider, boldly claiming that copyright law is simple only demonstrates that you don't understand law. It'd be like a lawyer boldly arguing (with no knowledge) that compilers are simple.

fastball 4y ago

Stable Diffusion isn't violating copyright for the same reason artists aren't violating copyright when they look at a bunch of images and make something similar.