3 ms·
> If you don't want your image looked at, don't put it online. Looking at things doesn't produce nearly identical copies, so you may be glossing over some impo
by itishappy 3y ago
> If you don't want your image looked at, don't put it online.
Looking at things doesn't produce nearly identical copies, so you may be glossing over some important bits.
- JCharante 3y agoThe keyword is nearly. It's still off enough that a talented artist could paint it from memory after looking at it.
- itishappy 3y agoThat's a separate issue. The act of producing a new image is a very different process than looking at one, and it comes with an exciting new set of legal consequences.
- pennomi 3y agoWith that in mind, isn’t the legal burden on the model output rather than the model weights and training? An artist has the capability to reproduce something copyrighted, but that’s generally only a problem if they try to sell that reproduction. In that regard, Midjourney probably is in violation of copyright because they profited from making a close reproduction of an existing work. But a solo person running Stable Diffusion locally probably isn’t, even if they made the same output.
- nitwit005 3y agoAn artist producing it from memory, and then distributing the copy without permission, is clearly a copyright violation.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoThe process of looking at an image online produces many identical and nearly identical copies of it. The DMCA just declared that those copies don't count for the purposes of copyright law, because it would not otherwise be feasible for any copyrighted material to live on the Internet. If you think LLMs are valuable and can't avoid this kind of thing fully, it seems reasonable to argue they do or should fall under a similar exemption.