3 ms·

> That’s entirely beside the point. Copyright still applies to photographs, and training has been occurring on copyright-protected photographs. No, you missed

> That’s entirely beside the point. Copyright still applies to photographs, and training has been occurring on copyright-protected photographs. No, you missed the point. I was making a distinction between artist styles, like "in the style of Picasso", versus generic styles, like "photography". Furthermore, I was making the point that the generic styles, such as "photography", are way more popular in the Stable Diffusion community, compared to artist specific styles, like "in the style of Picasso". Just to spell it out as clearly as possible: the majority of Stable Diffusion usage is not trying to imitate the style of a specific artist. Whether or not training on copyright-protected photographs is legal is tangential to the point. > It seems like maybe you didn’t fully parse what I said there, which wasn’t about reproducing works closely enough to violate copyright, it was about the broad goal of AI, which absolutely is to train on fixations (in Copyright parlance) and be able to produce mashup results that mimic the inputs as closely as possible without breaking the law. I fully understood your point and expressed my disagreement of it. Specifically, what you described is typically not the intended outcome, it is a failure mode. I have repeated this many times now and you keep ignoring me, as if the problem goes away by ignoring it.

dahart 3y ago
The very explicit intent of several high profile AI efforts to date has fundamentally been to distribute remixes of copyrighted works while skirting copyright law. This is precisely why OpenAI was requesting copyright exemption. They know how to fix overfitting. Their request is acknowledging that overfitting is not the core problem, and that they want the leeway to change or break existing copyright laws in order to consume the entire internet and be able to distribute the content that it contains. As far as copyright is concerned, there is no such “generic” category of photography, you’re trying to invent a term that has no legal status. All photos fall under copyright. Training on them may break copyright, reproducing them accidentally may break copyright. It is irrelevant what the majority use case is. (But how can you possibly claim to know what the “majority” of Stable Diffusion’s usage is?) It is a fact that examples of people asking to mimic specific artists are all over the internet, it’s quite common and easy to find. It doesn’t matter if this usage is not the majority, all that matters in terms of the legal question is whether the usage of AI meets the criteria established in the law. You’re splitting a hair trying to contradict me when I’m trying to point out that regardless of whether people are trying to imitate a single artist, the design and implementation of the system is expressly for the purpose of imitating multiple artists. My point doesn’t hinge on single vs 2, 3, or many. This isn’t a failure mode, this is the stated purpose of many of today’s neural networks. They are built to copy snippets of other people’s work.
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  > As far as copyright is concerned, there is no such “generic” category of photography, you’re trying to invent a term that has no legal status. All photos fall under copyright. Training on them may break copyright, reproducing them accidentally may break copyright. Not related to what I was saying at all. My point is that producing an AI image "in the style of a photograph" is less of an infringement on artists' rights than producing an AI image "in the style of Pablo Picasso". Surely you can agree with me on that point? Whether or not the AI models' training on copyrighted photographs was legal or not is tangential to the point above. > But how can you possibly claim to know what the “majority” of Stable Diffusion’s usage is? I'm actively following what people create, share, and like on Discords, subreddits and Civitai. I would say less than 1% of popular works are recreating the style of a specific artist. > It is irrelevant what the majority use case is. Well, you founded your whole argument on the very specific niche case of "create an image in style of <artist>". If that's now irrelevant, then I don't know what your argument is anymore. Maybe you shouldn't have made that argument in the first place if you find it so irrelevant. > It is a fact that examples of people asking to mimic specific artists are all over the internet, it’s quite common and easy to find. Sure. It's also a fact that examples of people killing each other with knives is easy to find. That doesn't mean the majority use case for knives is killing people, and that therefore knives should be banned. <thing> can be used for <good> and <bad> and we have to look at both before we say "ban <thing>", it's not enough to just look at <bad> > You’re splitting a hair trying to contradict me when I’m trying to point out that regardless of whether people are trying to imitate a single artist, the design and implementation of the system is expressly for the purpose of imitating multiple artists. My point doesn’t hinge on single vs 2, 3, or many. I'm not splitting hairs on whether an image is imitating "style of <artist1>" or imitating "style of <artist1> and <artist2>". A distinction like that is not meaningful. If you imitate artist1 and artist2 in the same image, that's still imitation of specific artist styles. Let's take an example. Here is the top image on Civitai today: https://civitai.com/images/7511111 https://civitai.com/images/7511111 That image seems to be using a LoRA that's intended to reproduce "China-Splashed Ink" style. I have personally seen this style in various artworks, movies, and games. For example, the Total War: Three Kingdoms game uses this style. This is a style that a large number of humans have contributed to over a long period of time. There isn't any individual artist who can claim that it's "their" style. Do you have an issue with AI image generator generating an image in that style?

dahart 3y ago

The very explicit intent of several high profile AI efforts to date has fundamentally been to distribute remixes of copyrighted works while skirting copyright law. This is precisely why OpenAI was requesting copyright exemption. They know how to fix overfitting. Their request is acknowledging that overfitting is not the core problem, and that they want the leeway to change or break existing copyright laws in order to consume the entire internet and be able to distribute the content that it contains. As far as copyright is concerned, there is no such “generic” category of photography, you’re trying to invent a term that has no legal status. All photos fall under copyright. Training on them may break copyright, reproducing them accidentally may break copyright. It is irrelevant what the majority use case is. (But how can you possibly claim to know what the “majority” of Stable Diffusion’s usage is?) It is a fact that examples of people asking to mimic specific artists are all over the internet, it’s quite common and easy to find. It doesn’t matter if this usage is not the majority, all that matters in terms of the legal question is whether the usage of AI meets the criteria established in the law. You’re splitting a hair trying to contradict me when I’m trying to point out that regardless of whether people are trying to imitate a single artist, the design and implementation of the system is expressly for the purpose of imitating multiple artists. My point doesn’t hinge on single vs 2, 3, or many. This isn’t a failure mode, this is the stated purpose of many of today’s neural networks. They are built to copy snippets of other people’s work.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
> As far as copyright is concerned, there is no such “generic” category of photography, you’re trying to invent a term that has no legal status. All photos fall under copyright. Training on them may break copyright, reproducing them accidentally may break copyright. Not related to what I was saying at all. My point is that producing an AI image "in the style of a photograph" is less of an infringement on artists' rights than producing an AI image "in the style of Pablo Picasso". Surely you can agree with me on that point? Whether or not the AI models' training on copyrighted photographs was legal or not is tangential to the point above. > But how can you possibly claim to know what the “majority” of Stable Diffusion’s usage is? I'm actively following what people create, share, and like on Discords, subreddits and Civitai. I would say less than 1% of popular works are recreating the style of a specific artist. > It is irrelevant what the majority use case is. Well, you founded your whole argument on the very specific niche case of "create an image in style of <artist>". If that's now irrelevant, then I don't know what your argument is anymore. Maybe you shouldn't have made that argument in the first place if you find it so irrelevant. > It is a fact that examples of people asking to mimic specific artists are all over the internet, it’s quite common and easy to find. Sure. It's also a fact that examples of people killing each other with knives is easy to find. That doesn't mean the majority use case for knives is killing people, and that therefore knives should be banned. <thing> can be used for <good> and <bad> and we have to look at both before we say "ban <thing>", it's not enough to just look at <bad> > You’re splitting a hair trying to contradict me when I’m trying to point out that regardless of whether people are trying to imitate a single artist, the design and implementation of the system is expressly for the purpose of imitating multiple artists. My point doesn’t hinge on single vs 2, 3, or many. I'm not splitting hairs on whether an image is imitating "style of <artist1>" or imitating "style of <artist1> and <artist2>". A distinction like that is not meaningful. If you imitate artist1 and artist2 in the same image, that's still imitation of specific artist styles. Let's take an example. Here is the top image on Civitai today: https://civitai.com/images/7511111 https://civitai.com/images/7511111 That image seems to be using a LoRA that's intended to reproduce "China-Splashed Ink" style. I have personally seen this style in various artworks, movies, and games. For example, the Total War: Three Kingdoms game uses this style. This is a style that a large number of humans have contributed to over a long period of time. There isn't any individual artist who can claim that it's "their" style. Do you have an issue with AI image generator generating an image in that style?