6 ms·

Let’s be realistic here. They’re not training the model from a link to the image. Whether or not they’ve downloaded and stored the image seems irrelevant to the

by redeux 3y ago

Let’s be realistic here. They’re not training the model from a link to the image. Whether or not they’ve downloaded and stored the image seems irrelevant to the copyright claim. They’ve clearly used and reproduced his content without a license. Does this count as fair use? I don’t know, but to claim that they’re just storing a url is bogus.

prepend 3y ago
If the image is available publicly, without restriction, then what license is needed? If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image, then put a password in front of it. Or add no-index to robots.txt. This is like driving around with a sign on your car and complaining that people are looking at it and imagining the image in ways you don’t like. If you don’t want people to see the image, don’t put it on a sign and drive around.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- viraptor 3y ago
  That's not how copyright works though. Whether you post an image publicly or not, it's covered by the standard copyright protection in most countries. It's not "without restriction" unless the author explicitly grants you such license. There's a bit of nuance in this case, but in general, yes, you need a licence.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    That is how copyright works. If you put something in public, people are allowed to look at it. And learn from it. They just can’t distribute copies of it.
    - polotics 3y ago
      People are allowed to learn from it, but as far as law exists now, AI's are not explicitly allowed to learn from it are they? As I understand it, a copyright has to be explicitly granted.
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        reference?
      - fauxpause_ 3y ago
        Laws don’t grant rights. They take them away. You generally are allowed to do something if it doesn’t violate a law. “Copyright” is not the right to copy, but rather a protection against other people copying and distributing your work. There is no law that says you cannot train AI models on copyrighted data.
        polotics 3y ago
        You don't train a model with data, as the verb "train" is used to describe something that humans and animals do (as per dictionary definition of the word). The other thing that you can do with data is copy or destroy it. Therefore, there is a law that says you cannot "train" (really, copy) data that is under copyright.
        fauxpause_ 3y ago
        Train is an accurate word. Copy is not. Training is literally adjusting weights of network such that data that flows through it can look more like the original. But it doesn’t preserve the original. Also, It is legal to make copies of copyrighted materials so long as you don’t distribute them.
        polotics 3y ago
        Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. Copyright laws ensure authors get protection against unwanted copy and distribution. Also you do not have to preserve the original for copyright to apply: any extract is only allowed under well defined fair use rules. A GAN's purpose is definitely not parody, commentary, ...
  - prepend 3y ago
    I can’t make copies or distribute or sell publicly available copyrighted works. But I can definite look at them and study them and make notes and sketch them, etc. That’s definitely how copyright works. I don’t think training on these has been tested, but I expect it will be allowed, otherwise how can a web browser receive, cache, and render a copyrighted photo? I think the closest is there were some lawsuits about google caching websites that contain copyrighted material. I assume they worked out in Google’s favor as google (and others) cache web sites even though they contain copyrighted material. The exception I remember is there are some specific rulings and laws governing how news is treated.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      That's not the point I was disagreeing with. What you're actually allowed to do in terms of training is likely going to be soon refined by courts. I was just raising the point that posting those images online or not, with protection or without, doesn't change what you can legally do with them. "If the image is available publicly, without restriction" — is irrelevant.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image Why quickly skip past the most unjustifiable part? Because you're about to use a human metaphor (like "see") for an algorithm. My algorithm is "copy." So instead of driving, it's like selling a book with a sign on the book that says "copyright 2017, all rights reserved" and saying that people can't copy it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't write and distribute the book. I actually believe this, but I don't know how somebody believes in one algo and not the other and remains consistent.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    The algorithm used to train models like SD (that use the LAION dataset), do not actually make a copy though, in any reasonable sense of the word. [1] LAION doesn't do the SD training themselves though. This just provide links with annotations. [1] Exception: The Ephemeral copy that is made when actually downloading the image. This is permitted by EU law. AFAIK after the image has been analyzed for certain properties like "red" or "traffic light" or "bus" or "vertical line" .. .etc... it is then discarded.
    - polotics 3y ago
      An ephemeral copy is a copy! no matter how ephemeral, if you lift the pixels from system A to system B, you are copying.
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        In the USA there was a circuit split on this in 2020 at least [1]. In the European union this form of copying is explicitly excepted in general under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(1) see [2]. Specifically in Germany (where LAION is established) it is permitted under Section 44a of the UrhG [3] . One could also argue based on Section 44b of same. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53... with thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...
sharemywin 3y ago
I don't believe it's LION that's copying the image. Just the URLs and alt text from links. They don't actually build the AI models. It's really no different than a search engine.
- rrobukef 3y ago
  And Google complies with DMCA requests and removes search results.
brookst 3y ago
You've mixed up a few different actors behind "they"
srslack 3y ago
>They’ve clearly used and reproduced his content without a license. Where have they reproduced his content? You don't need a license for your fair use of something. Can you walk me through how downloading a photo to your personal computer and studying it, perhaps to become a better artist is copyright infringement? Now let's apply that analogy to training a model, is the process of using a particular image to train a model, ultimately reconfiguring a bunch of weights in a matrix, so it "learns" whatever particulars it learns, copyright infringement? Is training a painting monkey that may paint something similar to a copyrighted painting, on a copyrighted painting, copyright infringement?
- chii 3y ago
  The unfortunate answer is that the courts have yet to decide what exactly "training an AI" means in the context of copyright. I personally do believe that training using copyrighted data is _not_ a violation of any existing copyright, but using the trained AI to reproduce and distribute something that an expert in the field would regard as a copy is a violation.
- triceratops 3y ago
  You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology. FWIW I do believe training a model is fundamentally different from training a human. The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually.
  - srslack 3y ago
    >The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually. It was deemed "privacy violating" under specific privacy laws within those jurisdictions. i.e. go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so. there's no substantial reproduction here, in the context of stable diffusion, until there is, and then yeah in that instance it's probably a copyright violation, like a substantial reproduction made by a human would be. but training itself, probably not. but yes, there have been no rulings on it in this context.
upon_drumhead 3y ago
From the article “Our client fundamentally understands that your client may not like the temporary reproduction of his works,” LAIOn lawyers wrote to Kneschke’s. “Only this has been expressly permitted by the European legislator.”
- gmerc 3y ago
  This is the crux. It’s by design. Europe decided to generally legislate pro scraping because it was seen as a way to liberate data from big techs monopoly. Which is exactly what happened with stable diffusion - say what you will about it, it’s distributing the ability to create value from AI among a larger number of benefactors than OpenAI
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> They’ve clearly used and reproduced his content Used? Yes. Reproduced? I don't think that necessarily follows. > I don’t know, but to claim that they’re just storing a url is bogus. They're definitely not just storing an URL, but claiming that what they're storing is some kind of "copy" seems equally bogus.
zsz 3y ago
They've no more "reproduced" his copyrighted content, than a student studying photography or other art did, when they saw the picture online and made a mental note to imitate aspects of what they thought made the content interesting. That's the cold, hard reality of the situation. At least, that's how I would argue it as the defense lawyer. People don't seem to be getting quite yet what 'artificial intelligence' intrinsically really means. But they will.

by redeux 3y ago

prepend 3y ago

If the image is available publicly, without restriction, then what license is needed? If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image, then put a password in front of it. Or add no-index to robots.txt. This is like driving around with a sign on your car and complaining that people are looking at it and imagining the image in ways you don’t like. If you don’t want people to see the image, don’t put it on a sign and drive around.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 3y ago
That's not how copyright works though. Whether you post an image publicly or not, it's covered by the standard copyright protection in most countries. It's not "without restriction" unless the author explicitly grants you such license. There's a bit of nuance in this case, but in general, yes, you need a licence.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  That is how copyright works. If you put something in public, people are allowed to look at it. And learn from it. They just can’t distribute copies of it.
  - polotics 3y ago
    People are allowed to learn from it, but as far as law exists now, AI's are not explicitly allowed to learn from it are they? As I understand it, a copyright has to be explicitly granted.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      reference?
    - fauxpause_ 3y ago
      Laws don’t grant rights. They take them away. You generally are allowed to do something if it doesn’t violate a law. “Copyright” is not the right to copy, but rather a protection against other people copying and distributing your work. There is no law that says you cannot train AI models on copyrighted data.
      - polotics 3y ago
        You don't train a model with data, as the verb "train" is used to describe something that humans and animals do (as per dictionary definition of the word). The other thing that you can do with data is copy or destroy it. Therefore, there is a law that says you cannot "train" (really, copy) data that is under copyright.
        fauxpause_ 3y ago
        Train is an accurate word. Copy is not. Training is literally adjusting weights of network such that data that flows through it can look more like the original. But it doesn’t preserve the original. Also, It is legal to make copies of copyrighted materials so long as you don’t distribute them.
        polotics 3y ago
        Train is not accurate because this word applies to learning performed by humans or animals. An AI is neither. Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution. Copyright laws ensure authors get protection against unwanted copy and distribution. Also you do not have to preserve the original for copyright to apply: any extract is only allowed under well defined fair use rules. A GAN's purpose is definitely not parody, commentary, ...
- prepend 3y ago
  I can’t make copies or distribute or sell publicly available copyrighted works. But I can definite look at them and study them and make notes and sketch them, etc. That’s definitely how copyright works. I don’t think training on these has been tested, but I expect it will be allowed, otherwise how can a web browser receive, cache, and render a copyrighted photo? I think the closest is there were some lawsuits about google caching websites that contain copyrighted material. I assume they worked out in Google’s favor as google (and others) cache web sites even though they contain copyrighted material. The exception I remember is there are some specific rulings and laws governing how news is treated.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    That's not the point I was disagreeing with. What you're actually allowed to do in terms of training is likely going to be soon refined by courts. I was just raising the point that posting those images online or not, with protection or without, doesn't change what you can legally do with them. "If the image is available publicly, without restriction" — is irrelevant.
pessimizer 3y ago
> If the artist doesn’t want people and algorithms to see the image Why quickly skip past the most unjustifiable part? Because you're about to use a human metaphor (like "see") for an algorithm. My algorithm is "copy." So instead of driving, it's like selling a book with a sign on the book that says "copyright 2017, all rights reserved" and saying that people can't copy it. If you don't want people to copy it, don't write and distribute the book. I actually believe this, but I don't know how somebody believes in one algo and not the other and remains consistent.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  The algorithm used to train models like SD (that use the LAION dataset), do not actually make a copy though, in any reasonable sense of the word. [1] LAION doesn't do the SD training themselves though. This just provide links with annotations. [1] Exception: The Ephemeral copy that is made when actually downloading the image. This is permitted by EU law. AFAIK after the image has been analyzed for certain properties like "red" or "traffic light" or "bus" or "vertical line" .. .etc... it is then discarded.
  - polotics 3y ago
    An ephemeral copy is a copy! no matter how ephemeral, if you lift the pixels from system A to system B, you are copying.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      In the USA there was a circuit split on this in 2020 at least [1]. In the European union this form of copying is explicitly excepted in general under Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(1) see [2]. Specifically in Germany (where LAION is established) it is permitted under Section 44a of the UrhG [3] . One could also argue based on Section 44b of same. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53-5_Gillotte.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/5/notes/files/53... with thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35713309 [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:en:HTML https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX... [3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_urhg.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...

sharemywin 3y ago

I don't believe it's LION that's copying the image. Just the URLs and alt text from links. They don't actually build the AI models. It's really no different than a search engine.

rrobukef 3y ago
And Google complies with DMCA requests and removes search results.

brookst 3y ago

You've mixed up a few different actors behind "they"

srslack 3y ago

>They’ve clearly used and reproduced his content without a license. Where have they reproduced his content? You don't need a license for your fair use of something. Can you walk me through how downloading a photo to your personal computer and studying it, perhaps to become a better artist is copyright infringement? Now let's apply that analogy to training a model, is the process of using a particular image to train a model, ultimately reconfiguring a bunch of weights in a matrix, so it "learns" whatever particulars it learns, copyright infringement? Is training a painting monkey that may paint something similar to a copyrighted painting, on a copyrighted painting, copyright infringement?

chii 3y ago
The unfortunate answer is that the courts have yet to decide what exactly "training an AI" means in the context of copyright. I personally do believe that training using copyrighted data is _not_ a violation of any existing copyright, but using the trained AI to reproduce and distribute something that an expert in the field would regard as a copy is a violation.
triceratops 3y ago
You're applying 20th century law and logic to 21st century technology. FWIW I do believe training a model is fundamentally different from training a human. The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually.
- srslack 3y ago
  >The obvious analog is facial recognition, deemed privacy violating by laws and courts in multiple jurisdictions, vs a human doing the same thing manually. It was deemed "privacy violating" under specific privacy laws within those jurisdictions. i.e. go pass a law amending copyright law if you think so. there's no substantial reproduction here, in the context of stable diffusion, until there is, and then yeah in that instance it's probably a copyright violation, like a substantial reproduction made by a human would be. but training itself, probably not. but yes, there have been no rulings on it in this context.

upon_drumhead 3y ago

From the article “Our client fundamentally understands that your client may not like the temporary reproduction of his works,” LAIOn lawyers wrote to Kneschke’s. “Only this has been expressly permitted by the European legislator.”

gmerc 3y ago
This is the crux. It’s by design. Europe decided to generally legislate pro scraping because it was seen as a way to liberate data from big techs monopoly. Which is exactly what happened with stable diffusion - say what you will about it, it’s distributing the ability to create value from AI among a larger number of benefactors than OpenAI

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> They’ve clearly used and reproduced his content Used? Yes. Reproduced? I don't think that necessarily follows. > I don’t know, but to claim that they’re just storing a url is bogus. They're definitely not just storing an URL, but claiming that what they're storing is some kind of "copy" seems equally bogus.

zsz 3y ago

They've no more "reproduced" his copyrighted content, than a student studying photography or other art did, when they saw the picture online and made a mental note to imitate aspects of what they thought made the content interesting. That's the cold, hard reality of the situation. At least, that's how I would argue it as the defense lawyer. People don't seem to be getting quite yet what 'artificial intelligence' intrinsically really means. But they will.