A legal discovery process is a perfectly reasonable (and common) way to determine if something is legal, and yes, it's completely unsurprising that the exact same outcome might be legal or illegal depending on how it was obtained (or even with what intent the actions were done), legality takes these things into account.
Re:Stable Diffusion is a big deal
by throwaway1851 on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @05:36AM
(#32660115)
I wouldn’t be too surprised if tools are created to quantify the amount of a source image that’s gone into an output image.
Someone will create some AI that detects if the image contains stuff from their copyrighted portfolio
The watermark.
What watermark?
The model is open source and free for people to make their own modifications. I don't see how any watermark can survive in those conditions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32573523
All this is super, super interesting to me. I don't think anybody really knows how it will play out, there's a lot of good arguments floating around.
All images from stable diffusion have an invisible watermark unless you modify the source to remove it.
Re:Stable Diffusion is a big deal
by LewisVerstappen on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @12:53AM
(#32658507)
It's extremely trivial to remove the watermark.
Will the same image be legal if a human made it but not if it was created by Stable Diffusion? How will someone even know, short of a legal discovery process?