5 ms·

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe/AI%20COPYRIGHT%20LAWSUIT%20mtdruling.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe/AI%20COPYRIGHT%20LAWSUIT%20mtdruling.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byprrngynpe/... The dismissal of Deviant was inappropriate given that the case hasn't reached discovery yet. The dismissal was granted based on a substantive evaluation of the Defendant's assertions which is inappropriate at this early procedural stage of the case. (see e.g. page 10 where the judge evaluates the "plausibility" of alleged facts, and page 12 where he says "I am not convinced" about the plaintiff's theory, even though in a MTD this is not a determination he is supposed to make pre-discovery). Moreover, even if plaintiff's language was "unclear", the appropriate procedure is to require them to amend their claim and dismiss Deviant if the plaintiff does not amend, not to dismiss a defendant and give the plaintiff leave to amend their claims. With respect to Midjourney, the Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to support their claim, so that dismissal was appropriate. (Pre-discovery, it's okay for the alleged/pleaded "facts" to be wrong, you just need to allege sufficient "facts" that you have a legal basis for a court case. Note that "facts" in the MTD context doesn't mean real world facts, it is a legal term of art that actually refers to an allegation of a fact that will later be determined to be true or false at the actual legal proceeding on the merits.)

artninja1988 3y ago
Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Getty has a much stronger case, given that warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images, so it's obvious that there was impermissible copying. I'm not sure Stability will agree to a licensing fee, since part of the rationale for the last version of SD was to remove the infringing images from their training sets going forward.
  - artninja1988 3y ago
    Hmmm. What do you think the outcome will be then?
  - zirgs 3y ago
    I've never seen a getty logo in any of my generated images so I suspect that they used img2img or some weird prompt.
    - simbolit 3y ago
      In the early stuffs, Stable Diffusion 1 (not XL 1!) and such, if you prompted for stock photo style images, you regularly (~30%) got something resembling the Getty stock photo watermark in the lower right. Was quite annoying but adding "public domain, Creative Commons" to the prompt usually got rid of it (the model knows that public domain images have no watermark :-). Since SD2.0 I haven't seen this happening at all.
      - zirgs 3y ago
        I've generated thousands of images using SD 1.5 based models and I've never got the getty watermark. That makes my think that some dishonest lawyer used img2img.
        simbolit 3y ago
        I can't find a publicly accessible SD1 model, but CompVis LatentDiffusion also uses the LAION dataset. (1) go to https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/latentdiffusion https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/latentdiffusion (2) enter "businesspeople arguing in the boardroom" as the prompt (3) generate a couple images (4) find things which look a lot lot lot like watermarks of stock photo companies This is what I get (first try!): https://ibb.co/1620jT8 https://ibb.co/1620jT8
        zirgs 3y ago
        Haha, that model is ancient. I doubt that anyone is using it now. Can they reproduce that problem in any recent model?

artninja1988 3y ago

Interesting. How do you see the Getty v stability lawsuit going? That looks much worse for stability. Do you think they will just settle and stability will pay them some licensing fee?

gamblor956 3y ago
Getty has a much stronger case, given that warped versions of the Getty logo have shown up in a number of SD-generated images, so it's obvious that there was impermissible copying. I'm not sure Stability will agree to a licensing fee, since part of the rationale for the last version of SD was to remove the infringing images from their training sets going forward.
- artninja1988 3y ago
  Hmmm. What do you think the outcome will be then?
- zirgs 3y ago
  I've never seen a getty logo in any of my generated images so I suspect that they used img2img or some weird prompt.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    In the early stuffs, Stable Diffusion 1 (not XL 1!) and such, if you prompted for stock photo style images, you regularly (~30%) got something resembling the Getty stock photo watermark in the lower right. Was quite annoying but adding "public domain, Creative Commons" to the prompt usually got rid of it (the model knows that public domain images have no watermark :-). Since SD2.0 I haven't seen this happening at all.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      I've generated thousands of images using SD 1.5 based models and I've never got the getty watermark. That makes my think that some dishonest lawyer used img2img.
      - simbolit 3y ago
        I can't find a publicly accessible SD1 model, but CompVis LatentDiffusion also uses the LAION dataset. (1) go to https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/latentdiffusion https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/latentdiffusion (2) enter "businesspeople arguing in the boardroom" as the prompt (3) generate a couple images (4) find things which look a lot lot lot like watermarks of stock photo companies This is what I get (first try!): https://ibb.co/1620jT8 https://ibb.co/1620jT8
        zirgs 3y ago
        Haha, that model is ancient. I doubt that anyone is using it now. Can they reproduce that problem in any recent model?