4 ms·

What's in question is simply a dataset with links to the images, with associated alt tags. The copyright owner came along and complained that they were violatin

What's in question is simply a dataset with links to the images, with associated alt tags. The copyright owner came along and complained that they were violating their copyright. LAION was not. It's not an abhorrent response, it's what should be an acceptable response to having to deal with bullshit legal threats from ignorant people. If the copyright owner doesn't want their images linked to, they should take them down from the web or perform such gymnastics such as restricting their serving to their own web server that refuses to serve the images unless certain conditions are met (an HTTP referrer match, a username/password is required, etc.)

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
so if they remove it from the web, will it be removed from the dataset?
- avereveard 3y ago
  The dataset don't contain the image it contains a link to it. Whoever uses the dataset well receive a 404 and move on with life
KaiserPro 3y ago
> complained that they were violating their copyright. LAION was not. Actually, thats not clear cut. Copyright isn't a binary thing, its a license with a bunch of terms that could be anything. Just because its on the internet, it doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. the chances of you getting caught and told off are very slim, but it doesn't mean its right or indeed legal. > it's what should be an acceptable response to having to deal with bullshit legal threats from ignorant people. again, its not bullshit. The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Now, if you want to allow people to use your pictures in anyway, then you can. There is nothing stopping you. However its down to the individual to choose.
- srslack 3y ago
  >Actually, thats not clear cut. It is almost perfectly clear cut. LAION is linking to the images, not redistributing them or storing them. A link. In a text file. To photos. Served from a web server. Presumably, the artist's web server or portfolio site hosted by a company they do business with. >The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Yeah, they do have the right to distribute them as they see fit. So, if they don't want them linked to, they can put them behind a paywall. It's a bullshit legal threat. The artist has a complete knuckle dragging understanding of copyright and the web.
  - sharemywin 3y ago
    or move the image to another location so the link doesn't work anymore.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    > So, if they don't want them linked to Again its not clear cut. the license could be something like: "you are able to view these images as part of this website, anything else is prohibited" or "direct linking to these images is not allowed, these images are licensed only fir use as part of this website" or something along those lines. Now, enforcing that is pretty hard. I'm also willing to bet that he didn't make any such license. But to say its a clear cut legal slam dunk isn't correct.
- brookst 3y ago
  You own the copyright to your comment here (congrats!) That does not prevent me from including a URI to the comment in a list, along with metadata like "comments that misunderstand copyright law". The photographer posted photos on a website with the express intent of distributing them there. Neither he, nor you, nor I can retroactively decide we don't like the way someone linked to our publicly-posted content. He literally sued someone for including a URI in list. That deserves the smack own he got.
thanatropism 3y ago
So wait. If I forget my office dooropen to my office, are you entitled to enter, make copies of documents and leave?
- srslack 3y ago
  This is akin to going to Google, or more accurately Open Street Map since we want to keep the metaphor, and threatening them with legal action for creating a map with the address of your house on it and noting that there's a priceless mural which you originally advertised and made publicly available elsewhere. Since people can take the map, find your address on it, and take pictures of the priceless mural, which they can then use to train a monkey to incorporate the style of the mural into other murals that the monkey creates, thus violating your copyright. And the murals that the monkey produces are not copyrightable. But also, yes, in that instance, if it's public and the door's open. Your analogy isn't a good one though. I like mine better, to illustrate the hoops the artist had to jump through.
- prepend 3y ago
  Yes, actually. If your door is open the public and your documents are laying on your desk, then I can certainly walk in and take pictures of your documents with my phone. Of course there are restrictions like if your office is already in a private building, probably not. But if it’s facing a public street and I just walk in, how would I know you didn’t leave it open all the time? If you had some “no tresspassing” “private property” signs up and the door was open, then your scenario is less likely to work. Or if your documents are locked up in a file cabinet, then I can’t break into it.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

so if they remove it from the web, will it be removed from the dataset?

avereveard 3y ago
The dataset don't contain the image it contains a link to it. Whoever uses the dataset well receive a 404 and move on with life

KaiserPro 3y ago

> complained that they were violating their copyright. LAION was not. Actually, thats not clear cut. Copyright isn't a binary thing, its a license with a bunch of terms that could be anything. Just because its on the internet, it doesn't mean you can do what you want with it. the chances of you getting caught and told off are very slim, but it doesn't mean its right or indeed legal. > it's what should be an acceptable response to having to deal with bullshit legal threats from ignorant people. again, its not bullshit. The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Now, if you want to allow people to use your pictures in anyway, then you can. There is nothing stopping you. However its down to the individual to choose.

srslack 3y ago
>Actually, thats not clear cut. It is almost perfectly clear cut. LAION is linking to the images, not redistributing them or storing them. A link. In a text file. To photos. Served from a web server. Presumably, the artist's web server or portfolio site hosted by a company they do business with. >The person created those pictures, and has the right to distribute them as they see fit. Yeah, they do have the right to distribute them as they see fit. So, if they don't want them linked to, they can put them behind a paywall. It's a bullshit legal threat. The artist has a complete knuckle dragging understanding of copyright and the web.
- sharemywin 3y ago
  or move the image to another location so the link doesn't work anymore.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > So, if they don't want them linked to Again its not clear cut. the license could be something like: "you are able to view these images as part of this website, anything else is prohibited" or "direct linking to these images is not allowed, these images are licensed only fir use as part of this website" or something along those lines. Now, enforcing that is pretty hard. I'm also willing to bet that he didn't make any such license. But to say its a clear cut legal slam dunk isn't correct.
brookst 3y ago
You own the copyright to your comment here (congrats!) That does not prevent me from including a URI to the comment in a list, along with metadata like "comments that misunderstand copyright law". The photographer posted photos on a website with the express intent of distributing them there. Neither he, nor you, nor I can retroactively decide we don't like the way someone linked to our publicly-posted content. He literally sued someone for including a URI in list. That deserves the smack own he got.

thanatropism 3y ago

So wait. If I forget my office dooropen to my office, are you entitled to enter, make copies of documents and leave?

srslack 3y ago
This is akin to going to Google, or more accurately Open Street Map since we want to keep the metaphor, and threatening them with legal action for creating a map with the address of your house on it and noting that there's a priceless mural which you originally advertised and made publicly available elsewhere. Since people can take the map, find your address on it, and take pictures of the priceless mural, which they can then use to train a monkey to incorporate the style of the mural into other murals that the monkey creates, thus violating your copyright. And the murals that the monkey produces are not copyrightable. But also, yes, in that instance, if it's public and the door's open. Your analogy isn't a good one though. I like mine better, to illustrate the hoops the artist had to jump through.
prepend 3y ago
Yes, actually. If your door is open the public and your documents are laying on your desk, then I can certainly walk in and take pictures of your documents with my phone. Of course there are restrictions like if your office is already in a private building, probably not. But if it’s facing a public street and I just walk in, how would I know you didn’t leave it open all the time? If you had some “no tresspassing” “private property” signs up and the door was open, then your scenario is less likely to work. Or if your documents are locked up in a file cabinet, then I can’t break into it.