2 ms·
No, that is not the precedent set here. A legal claim was brought against the defendant, but (the judge found) that some of the evidence didn't have a specific
by gosub100 3y ago
No, that is not the precedent set here. A legal claim was brought against the defendant, but (the judge found) that some of the evidence didn't have a specific property (copyright). Also the case was done in civil court, which has different rules and procedures than criminal court. This case is not about what one person did during the day.
- leereeves 3y agoIn short, the judge ruled that McKernan and Ortiz hadn't followed proper procedure for a lawsuit of this type, because they did not register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office before filing the lawsuit.
- bee_rider 3y agoThat doesn’t seem to fit with the quote, though. The phrasing “not plausible that every training image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted” makes it pretty explicit, I think, that what is protecting the data-set is the presence of non-copyright images, not the absence of copyright ones.
- bee_rider 3y agoActually, just to follow up, I think the crucial element here is: > The judge has offered the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend and clarify their theory as to how Stable Diffusion operates its training data. Since they are allowed to amend part of their claims, it seems more like the judge is just asking them to be a little more specific about which copyright works were included.