4 ms·

> The idea here is that Stable Diffusion "memorised" the Getty logo, and could place it on outputs on demand. > This is no longer possible as far as I can tell

> The idea here is that Stable Diffusion "memorised" the Getty logo, and could place it on outputs on demand. > This is no longer possible as far as I can tell. ? Why would it no longer be possible? Stability has exactly zero way of updating the weights once they have made them public. Is the suggestion that this was only possible on 1.4 and 1.5 and XL don't have the issue? ...or somehow what the model was previously capable of doing is now no longer possible? That seems like enormously unsubstantiated speculation. We have proof from multiple independent studies that these models in general memorize a small percentage of their training data to the degree that reasonable reconstructions of the original training images can be recovered from the model. There is, to my knowledge, no mitigation of this that has been implemented, or even conceptualized by either stability or anyone else. Interesting read regarding the actual ruling the judge made, but this is some "opinion here" commentary, which seem out of place; what the court actually rules is the interesting part of this.

echelon 3y ago
I've memorized the Getty image and could reproduce it for you. Should I be lobotomized? I think we need an entirely new approach to copyright. You can't copyright a brain, and weights are closer to that than they are pirated digital archives.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  Stable Diffusion isn't a human being. It's not even sentient. It's a system designed to synthesize images, and it was trained using images authored by human beings - without the rightsholders' consent. This has nothing to do with lobotomies. You have rights as a human that a piece of software does not have. I don't understand why I keep seeing people roll stuff out like 'should I be lobotomized' as some sort of attempt to distract from this just being a dispute over copyright minimalism/maximalism.
  - artninja1988 3y ago
    And the people training stabile diffusion shouldn't need the authors consent to train on their works.
    - monocasa 3y ago
      Copyright has always made a distinction between the copies you make in a person's head and the copies you make into another work generated by a person.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  The complaint is not about pure storage/memorization. If it produced images identical or highly similar to the copyrighted work, it would be similar to you making a copy and giving it to someone without paying royalties. The article also shows an example of it reproducing their trademark. Edit: Rephrased to be more clear.
- wokwokwok 3y ago
  I’m not speculating about that. I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case. > I think… This is precisely my point. Most people don’t care what I think; or, you, or the OP on this topic. Opinions are thick and fast. What people care about is what the court rules.
  - surfacedetail 3y ago
    >I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case. This adds the caveat "as far as I can tell". That's a caveat that the capability to produce Getty outputs has been removed, it can be tested and amended if new information comes to light. >What people care about is what the court rules. Courts also rely on experts and expert testimony, the judge here is even citing a law professor's opinion. The idea that judges never rely on legal experts and commentators is strange.
- interpol_p 3y ago
  It's not a brain. It's more like a very esoteric zip file which can extract a "lossy" version of the copyright material it was trained on, and reproduce that in an uncountable number of combinations that are meaningful to humans
  - visarga 3y ago
    > reproduce that in an uncountable number of combinations that are meaningful to humans Then it is creative. It is doing meaningful work on top of the basic facts it learned. The facts and the style can't be copyrighted.
- raincole 3y ago
  > I've memorized the Getty image and could reproduce it for you. Should I be lobotomized? Can I download you via a URL? If not this analogy is completely meaningless. You and stable diffusion are just too different.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > Can I download you via a URL? You can download an LLM trained on my writings. And I have a speech model, too. It won't be much longer until we have brain scans of people that are turned into some form of generative system.
surfacedetail 3y ago
>There is, to my knowledge, no mitigation of this that has been implemented, or even conceptualized by either stability or anyone else. I've tried with newer models, and you can't produce outputs with Getty logos, if you use "getty images" in prompts it won't work. Even if you type "Getty" you don't get the logo, I remember reading a tweet by Emad that any reference to Getty had been removed as of 1.5, but I can't find it anymore, maybe deleted now? So yes, this is a thing, feel free to try it for yourself. Emad

echelon 3y ago

I've memorized the Getty image and could reproduce it for you. Should I be lobotomized? I think we need an entirely new approach to copyright. You can't copyright a brain, and weights are closer to that than they are pirated digital archives.

kevingadd 3y ago
Stable Diffusion isn't a human being. It's not even sentient. It's a system designed to synthesize images, and it was trained using images authored by human beings - without the rightsholders' consent. This has nothing to do with lobotomies. You have rights as a human that a piece of software does not have. I don't understand why I keep seeing people roll stuff out like 'should I be lobotomized' as some sort of attempt to distract from this just being a dispute over copyright minimalism/maximalism.
- artninja1988 3y ago
  And the people training stabile diffusion shouldn't need the authors consent to train on their works.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    Copyright has always made a distinction between the copies you make in a person's head and the copies you make into another work generated by a person.
nitwit005 3y ago
The complaint is not about pure storage/memorization. If it produced images identical or highly similar to the copyrighted work, it would be similar to you making a copy and giving it to someone without paying royalties. The article also shows an example of it reproducing their trademark. Edit: Rephrased to be more clear.
wokwokwok 3y ago
I’m not speculating about that. I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case. > I think… This is precisely my point. Most people don’t care what I think; or, you, or the OP on this topic. Opinions are thick and fast. What people care about is what the court rules.
- surfacedetail 3y ago
  >I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case. This adds the caveat "as far as I can tell". That's a caveat that the capability to produce Getty outputs has been removed, it can be tested and amended if new information comes to light. >What people care about is what the court rules. Courts also rely on experts and expert testimony, the judge here is even citing a law professor's opinion. The idea that judges never rely on legal experts and commentators is strange.
interpol_p 3y ago
It's not a brain. It's more like a very esoteric zip file which can extract a "lossy" version of the copyright material it was trained on, and reproduce that in an uncountable number of combinations that are meaningful to humans
- visarga 3y ago
  > reproduce that in an uncountable number of combinations that are meaningful to humans Then it is creative. It is doing meaningful work on top of the basic facts it learned. The facts and the style can't be copyrighted.
raincole 3y ago
> I've memorized the Getty image and could reproduce it for you. Should I be lobotomized? Can I download you via a URL? If not this analogy is completely meaningless. You and stable diffusion are just too different.
- echelon 3y ago
  > Can I download you via a URL? You can download an LLM trained on my writings. And I have a speech model, too. It won't be much longer until we have brain scans of people that are turned into some form of generative system.

surfacedetail 3y ago

>There is, to my knowledge, no mitigation of this that has been implemented, or even conceptualized by either stability or anyone else. I've tried with newer models, and you can't produce outputs with Getty logos, if you use "getty images" in prompts it won't work. Even if you type "Getty" you don't get the logo, I remember reading a tweet by Emad that any reference to Getty had been removed as of 1.5, but I can't find it anymore, maybe deleted now? So yes, this is a thing, feel free to try it for yourself. Emad