Re:Stable Diffusion 1.5
by notacoward on Saturday October 22, 2022 @10:42AM
(#33298701)
> Again, there is a distinction to be made between the outputs of the model and the model itself!
Oh, you mean the very first thing I had to explain to you at the beginning of this exchange because you seemed to be ignoring it? Very little of these discussions has been about the models. Most of the discussion is about the outputs, and there the fair-use cases is - as Lemley/Casey and Ochoa both concede - much weaker.
But by all means keep going on about feelings. We can all tell it's not others' feelings that are being hurt by mere disagreement.
When Tyler Ochoa is saying that there is a decent chance of a copyright claim he is specifically talking about the output of the model.
Here is the full quote:
"[Machine learning] systems should generally be able to use databases for training, whether or not the contents of that database are copyrighted," they wrote, adding that copyright law isn't the right tool to regulate abuses.
But when it comes to the output of these models – the code suggestions automatically made by the likes of Copilot – the potential for the copyright claim proposed by Butterick looks stronger.
"I actually think there's a decent chance there is a good copyright claim," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor in the law department at Santa Clara University in California, in a phone interview with The Register.
The use of the word "but" marks the transition from a discussion around the model itself to the outputs of the model.