4 ms·

The license is non-commercial, but: > For clarity, Derivative Works do not include the output of any Model. https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/sdxl-turbo/blob

The license is non-commercial, but: > For clarity, Derivative Works do not include the output of any Model. https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/sdxl-turbo/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/sdxl-turbo/blob/main/LICE... Doesn't that mean that generated images from it should be fine for commercial?

nperez 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe there was a court ruling that says AI generated works cannot be copyrighted. So you could use them, but couldn't stop anyone else from doing what they want with them
- yreg 3y ago
  > there was a court ruling What jurisdiction? USA?
  - adventured 3y ago
    Yes - https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receiv...
    - donkeyd 3y ago
      Actually, no. This is just another example of a headline leaving out important details of the actual case. In this case the plaintiff actually named the AI as the producer, not themselves. From the case: "the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement" This leaves a lot of wiggle room for AI created art with some form of human involvement. I.E. import the generated image into Photoshop and edit it. Perform some inpainting to improve certain parts. Possibly even prompting and configuring things in Automatic1111 might be regarded as human involvement. This is going to bring many legal procedures before there's a clear answer to whether AI generated art can be copyrighted.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        it doesn't touch trademarks either. If I generate a recognizable picture of a trademarked icon, I still can't use it for my own commercial purposes, even if it's not covered under copyright.
kmeisthax 3y ago
No, it just means that if they sue you, they're pre-committing to not try and foreclose on your own generated outputs by claiming they're derivatives that they would then own. Of course, this is a water sandwich. If model outputs are derivatives of the model, it'd be difficult to argue that the model itself isn't a derivative of all the training data, most of which isn't licensed. So if anything, this covers Stability's ass, not yours. There's also the related question of if AI models - not their outputs, just the models themselves - have any copyright at all. The logic behind the non-copyrightability of AI art would also apply to the AI training process, so the only way you could get copyright would be a particularly creative way of organizing and compiling the training dataset. Remember: while the "AI art isn't art" argument reeks to high heavens of artistic snobbery, it's not entirely wrong. There isn't a lot of creative control in the process. Furthermore, we don't give copyright to monkeys[2], so why should we give it to AI models? "Noncommercial" isn't actually a thing in copyright law. Copyrighted works are inherently commercial artifacts[0], so if you just say "noncommercial use is fine", you've said nothing - and you've invited the legal equivalent of nasal goblins[1] into the courtroom. Creative Commons gets around this by defining their own concept of NonCommercial use. So what did Stability's lawyers cook up? > “Non-Commercial Uses” means exercising any of the rights granted herein for the purpose of research or non-commercial purposes. Non-Commercial Uses does not include any production use of the Software Products or any Derivative Works. Uh... yeah. That's replacing a meaningless phrase with a tautology. Fun. The only concrete grant of rights is research use, and they categorically reject "any production use", which is awfully close to all uses. Even using this to generate funny fanart mashups for your own personal enjoyment could be construed as a 'production use'. Stability could actually sue you for that (however unlikely that would be). [0] In the eyes of the law. I actually hate this opinion, but it's the opinion the law takes. [1] Under ISO 9899, it is entirely legal for C programs with undefined behavior to make goblins fly out of your nose. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
- __loam 3y ago
  I think the artists get to say whatever they want about this bullshit considering it's entirely dependent on their work to even function. I don't think the AI community gets to call the people who make the models possible at all snobs or anything else. The AI people didn't make shit. They should have some respect for the people that do.
esjeon 3y ago
IANAL but it sounds more like SAI is not responsible for any outputs generated using their models and how those are used.

nperez 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe there was a court ruling that says AI generated works cannot be copyrighted. So you could use them, but couldn't stop anyone else from doing what they want with them

yreg 3y ago
> there was a court ruling What jurisdiction? USA?
- adventured 3y ago
  Yes - https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receiv...
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    Actually, no. This is just another example of a headline leaving out important details of the actual case. In this case the plaintiff actually named the AI as the producer, not themselves. From the case: "the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement" This leaves a lot of wiggle room for AI created art with some form of human involvement. I.E. import the generated image into Photoshop and edit it. Perform some inpainting to improve certain parts. Possibly even prompting and configuring things in Automatic1111 might be regarded as human involvement. This is going to bring many legal procedures before there's a clear answer to whether AI generated art can be copyrighted.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      it doesn't touch trademarks either. If I generate a recognizable picture of a trademarked icon, I still can't use it for my own commercial purposes, even if it's not covered under copyright.

kmeisthax 3y ago

No, it just means that if they sue you, they're pre-committing to not try and foreclose on your own generated outputs by claiming they're derivatives that they would then own. Of course, this is a water sandwich. If model outputs are derivatives of the model, it'd be difficult to argue that the model itself isn't a derivative of all the training data, most of which isn't licensed. So if anything, this covers Stability's ass, not yours. There's also the related question of if AI models - not their outputs, just the models themselves - have any copyright at all. The logic behind the non-copyrightability of AI art would also apply to the AI training process, so the only way you could get copyright would be a particularly creative way of organizing and compiling the training dataset. Remember: while the "AI art isn't art" argument reeks to high heavens of artistic snobbery, it's not entirely wrong. There isn't a lot of creative control in the process. Furthermore, we don't give copyright to monkeys[2], so why should we give it to AI models? "Noncommercial" isn't actually a thing in copyright law. Copyrighted works are inherently commercial artifacts[0], so if you just say "noncommercial use is fine", you've said nothing - and you've invited the legal equivalent of nasal goblins[1] into the courtroom. Creative Commons gets around this by defining their own concept of NonCommercial use. So what did Stability's lawyers cook up? > “Non-Commercial Uses” means exercising any of the rights granted herein for the purpose of research or non-commercial purposes. Non-Commercial Uses does not include any production use of the Software Products or any Derivative Works. Uh... yeah. That's replacing a meaningless phrase with a tautology. Fun. The only concrete grant of rights is research use, and they categorically reject "any production use", which is awfully close to all uses. Even using this to generate funny fanart mashups for your own personal enjoyment could be construed as a 'production use'. Stability could actually sue you for that (however unlikely that would be). [0] In the eyes of the law. I actually hate this opinion, but it's the opinion the law takes. [1] Under ISO 9899, it is entirely legal for C programs with undefined behavior to make goblins fly out of your nose. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

__loam 3y ago
I think the artists get to say whatever they want about this bullshit considering it's entirely dependent on their work to even function. I don't think the AI community gets to call the people who make the models possible at all snobs or anything else. The AI people didn't make shit. They should have some respect for the people that do.

esjeon 3y ago

IANAL but it sounds more like SAI is not responsible for any outputs generated using their models and how those are used.