6 ms·

I consider this a smoking gun for Midjourney's flagrant copyright infringement

48 points by kranke155 3y ago

kranke155 3y ago
Just some more detail about this. Reid Southen has been testing out Midjourney V6. He quickly found out that you could easily generate images of Thanos that are direct copies of images from the Avengers films. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 In response to his and more discoveries like his, Midjourney updated their ToS to place the blame on users for infringing copyright. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 Reid Southen had all his content erased without permission for his grievous transgression of showing just how easily it is to make copyright infringing material using Midjourney V6. This is after they update their ToS to persecute him and people like him, who are posting this kind of imagery on X. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 He (and others) moved on and made more examples, using the film Joker: https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 And the film Dune: https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 And Star Wars Rogue One: https://twitter.com/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://twitter.com/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 A new account has also showed up that's collecting examples of this called Ai Piracy https://twitter.com/ai_piracy https://twitter.com/ai_piracy Ed Newton Rex, a former Stability AI employee, has chimed in here https://twitter.com/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785 https://twitter.com/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785
- Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
  in an ironic twist https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://nitter.net/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://nitter.net/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://nitter.net/ai_piracy https://nitter.net/ai_piracy https://nitter.net/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785 https://nitter.net/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    double whammy you posting nitter which is stealing content from x/twitter
    - leereeves 3y ago
      x/twitter doesn't own that content. It's arguably stealing from the people who posted on twitter (because twitter got permission and nitter didn't) but most people who post on x/twitter want their content to spread as much as possible, and don't benefit from twitter advertising anyway.
    - Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
      that was why I said it was ironic
bradley13 3y ago
Perhaps worth noting: That picture comes up in a Google search on numerous websites. It was apparently one of the images distributed to generate publicity for the film. This prompt is very specific: it references not only a film, but also two actors with unique names. It's not really a surprise that it generates an image out of its training data - what else is it going to do? In this kind of situation, I think Midjourney should just give a reference, something like "Due to an overly specific prompt, this image is very similar to XXX". As I have posted elsewhere, I see no copyright problem using such images for training. If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. If you don't want your image looked at, don't put it online. The only problem here is the lack of a reference.
- cloudking 3y ago
  How would you implement your solution technically though? There isn't a reference set of images in the model, it's just weights.
  - octacat 3y ago
    and data on disk is just ones and zeros.
- octacat 3y ago
  > If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives without obtaining authorisation from the copyright owner of the original work. Even if you are a human, copying the random image from the internet into photoshop and start modifying it could lead you into trouble (it is usually not enforced though, because it is hard to find. But AI systems would simplify scanning for such violations). Your understanding of copyright and actual copyright are two different things. Or at least you cannot share the produced image - which Midjourney does here.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    [flagged]
al2o3cr 3y ago
LOL @ "nearly 1:1" The anti-LLM panic is going to lead to corporations like Disney owning not just the likenesses of the characters in their movies but anything that even vaguely looks like something in their movies.
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Disney is in such a different place politically now than it used to be that they didn't even bother trying to get copyright extended again, which is something they used to be able to get with ease. If IP rights are going to be expanded to be restrictive against big tech, someone other than Disney is going to have to lead the charge.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Isn't that still image considered 'fair use'? So what copyright is involved?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  depends on what you do with it based on my understanding. For example, you couldn't sell posters of it. In this sense, I think the point isnt that Midjourney cant use it in training, but that not all outputs are free of copyright restrictions. I can find tons of images on google that carry various forms of copyright, and google is fine search them and display them. I just dont own them.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    So the title is hyperbole then. Midjourney has no part in infringement. It's all on the users' shoulders. Just as I thought.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      The output itself seems to be a nothingburger, but it does demonstrate that full images are digested and can be stored largely intact in the model. This may demonstrate that midjourney didn't just see the copyrighted materials once during training, but continually uses them intact as part of their operations. This is the more interesting Implication
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        I suppose. It means they should cluster their training data to avoid learning any one thing too sincerely? Happens on the web. You try to search for something that has some edgy or meme-like meaning now, good like finding the thing. The algorithm is poisoned by the popularity of the other thing.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  An image is not fair use. It's just an image. Fair use is a test of how someone uses expression copied from someone else's existing work. Publishing the output to report on problematic prompt patterns (as in the Twitter post by Reid Southen @Rahll) is probably fair use. (Can't know for sure unless a court rules on the specific case in question.) Publishing the output while saying "you should try this for a free poster" is infringement.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Midjourney is just a tool. It looks to me like the author is the one using the tool for copyright infringement.
- haswell 3y ago
  > Midjourney is just a tool I’ve seen this framing and don’t agree with it. What does it mean for something to be “just a tool”? I think most people are trying to indicate that the tool itself is not of consequence, and that the issue is all with users who misuse it. But by reducing generative AI to a low resolution category like “tool”, the way this tool works - arguably the subject of consequence - gets obscured. It seems to me like these are “just tools” the way a highly sophisticated manufacturing facility capable of producing products is “just a tool”. We’re not talking about paint brushes and screw drivers here.
  - polishdude20 3y ago
    Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who owns the copyright. You can even do this in public and not make money off of it and that would still be true.
    - haswell 3y ago
      > Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.
      - 3y ago
dragonwriter 3y ago
Its perhaps one of many smoking guns that the argument “training does not include the ability to recognizably reproduce individual source images” is false, but that's neither a necessary nor sufficient basis to conclude that MJ, as such, is a violation of copyright. (Nor is it either necessary nor sufficient to the lesser argument that MJ can be used for copyright infringement.) But it might rebut one of a large number of arguments that have been made against the MJ-itself-is-infringing position, so, great, I guess?

48 points by kranke155 3y ago

Just some more detail about this. Reid Southen has been testing out Midjourney V6. He quickly found out that you could easily generate images of Thanos that are direct copies of images from the Avengers films. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 In response to his and more discoveries like his, Midjourney updated their ToS to place the blame on users for infringing copyright. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 Reid Southen had all his content erased without permission for his grievous transgression of showing just how easily it is to make copyright infringing material using Midjourney V6. This is after they update their ToS to persecute him and people like him, who are posting this kind of imagery on X. https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 He (and others) moved on and made more examples, using the film Joker: https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 And the film Dune: https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 And Star Wars Rogue One: https://twitter.com/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://twitter.com/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 A new account has also showed up that's collecting examples of this called Ai Piracy https://twitter.com/ai_piracy https://twitter.com/ai_piracy Ed Newton Rex, a former Stability AI employee, has chimed in here https://twitter.com/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785 https://twitter.com/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785

Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
in an ironic twist https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738286342390374882 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739155446726791470 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1738408490543054949 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739331983992406508 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://nitter.net/Rahll/status/1739003201221718466 https://nitter.net/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://nitter.net/KatieConradKS/status/1739765791996711034 https://nitter.net/ai_piracy https://nitter.net/ai_piracy https://nitter.net/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785 https://nitter.net/ednewtonrex/status/1738141349172453785
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  double whammy you posting nitter which is stealing content from x/twitter
  - leereeves 3y ago
    x/twitter doesn't own that content. It's arguably stealing from the people who posted on twitter (because twitter got permission and nitter didn't) but most people who post on x/twitter want their content to spread as much as possible, and don't benefit from twitter advertising anyway.
  - Baldbvrhunter 3y ago
    that was why I said it was ironic

bradley13 3y ago

Perhaps worth noting: That picture comes up in a Google search on numerous websites. It was apparently one of the images distributed to generate publicity for the film. This prompt is very specific: it references not only a film, but also two actors with unique names. It's not really a surprise that it generates an image out of its training data - what else is it going to do? In this kind of situation, I think Midjourney should just give a reference, something like "Due to an overly specific prompt, this image is very similar to XXX". As I have posted elsewhere, I see no copyright problem using such images for training. If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. If you don't want your image looked at, don't put it online. The only problem here is the lack of a reference.

cloudking 3y ago
How would you implement your solution technically though? There isn't a reference set of images in the model, it's just weights.
- octacat 3y ago
  and data on disk is just ones and zeros.
octacat 3y ago
> If an image is online, it is going to be looked at, maybe by people, maybe by automated systems. You cannot use a copyrighted image to produce derivatives without obtaining authorisation from the copyright owner of the original work. Even if you are a human, copying the random image from the internet into photoshop and start modifying it could lead you into trouble (it is usually not enforced though, because it is hard to find. But AI systems would simplify scanning for such violations). Your understanding of copyright and actual copyright are two different things. Or at least you cannot share the produced image - which Midjourney does here.
- jMyles 3y ago
  [flagged]

al2o3cr 3y ago

LOL @ "nearly 1:1" The anti-LLM panic is going to lead to corporations like Disney owning not just the likenesses of the characters in their movies but anything that even vaguely looks like something in their movies.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Disney is in such a different place politically now than it used to be that they didn't even bother trying to get copyright extended again, which is something they used to be able to get with ease. If IP rights are going to be expanded to be restrictive against big tech, someone other than Disney is going to have to lead the charge.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Isn't that still image considered 'fair use'? So what copyright is involved?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
depends on what you do with it based on my understanding. For example, you couldn't sell posters of it. In this sense, I think the point isnt that Midjourney cant use it in training, but that not all outputs are free of copyright restrictions. I can find tons of images on google that carry various forms of copyright, and google is fine search them and display them. I just dont own them.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  So the title is hyperbole then. Midjourney has no part in infringement. It's all on the users' shoulders. Just as I thought.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The output itself seems to be a nothingburger, but it does demonstrate that full images are digested and can be stored largely intact in the model. This may demonstrate that midjourney didn't just see the copyrighted materials once during training, but continually uses them intact as part of their operations. This is the more interesting Implication
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      I suppose. It means they should cluster their training data to avoid learning any one thing too sincerely? Happens on the web. You try to search for something that has some edgy or meme-like meaning now, good like finding the thing. The algorithm is poisoned by the popularity of the other thing.
hn_acker 3y ago
An image is not fair use. It's just an image. Fair use is a test of how someone uses expression copied from someone else's existing work. Publishing the output to report on problematic prompt patterns (as in the Twitter post by Reid Southen @Rahll) is probably fair use. (Can't know for sure unless a court rules on the specific case in question.) Publishing the output while saying "you should try this for a free poster" is infringement.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

Midjourney is just a tool. It looks to me like the author is the one using the tool for copyright infringement.

haswell 3y ago
> Midjourney is just a tool I’ve seen this framing and don’t agree with it. What does it mean for something to be “just a tool”? I think most people are trying to indicate that the tool itself is not of consequence, and that the issue is all with users who misuse it. But by reducing generative AI to a low resolution category like “tool”, the way this tool works - arguably the subject of consequence - gets obscured. It seems to me like these are “just tools” the way a highly sophisticated manufacturing facility capable of producing products is “just a tool”. We’re not talking about paint brushes and screw drivers here.
- polishdude20 3y ago
  Yes but it is "just a tool". You can choose to generate copyrighted images all day long in private and it doesn't take away from the profits of the company who owns the copyright. You can even do this in public and not make money off of it and that would still be true.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > Yes but it is "just a tool" In your mind, what distinguishes something that is "just a tool" from something that is "more than just a tool"? To me, this framing is just not useful. It doesn't tell me anything about the implications of the existence of the tool. If I described an ICBM as "just a weapon" in a discussion about weapons that also includes bows and swords, I don't think it fits in the same category. To me, "just a tool" is fundamentally reductionist. It's anti-curious. It papers over the interesting parts of what's going on and leaves us with nothing to assess the situation. It forces some kind of artificial equivalence between things that are entirely unlike each other.
    - 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

Its perhaps one of many smoking guns that the argument “training does not include the ability to recognizably reproduce individual source images” is false, but that's neither a necessary nor sufficient basis to conclude that MJ, as such, is a violation of copyright. (Nor is it either necessary nor sufficient to the lesser argument that MJ can be used for copyright infringement.) But it might rebut one of a large number of arguments that have been made against the MJ-itself-is-infringing position, so, great, I guess?