Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by wnkrshm on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @03:41AM
(#33432406)
A digital photo of the Eiffel tower at night doesn't have the real Eiffel tower inside, only weights and pixels - still you don't have the rights to publish your photo of the Eiffel tower in France.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by visarga on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @05:38AM
(#33433274)
Drawings and art including the Eiffel tower are still ok, right?
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by ilyt on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @06:59AM
(#33433873)
> Trained models don't have the actual images inside, they have summed up gradients. So what they are doing is far from a copy&paste job, it's more like decomposing and recomposing from basic concepts, something made clear by the "variations" mode.
Doesn't matter. JPEG of the work is just a bit of numbers to feed equation, doesn't change the fact it's copyright infringement
And the other way around - are we allowed to train and use neural nets on anyone's work, assuming no near duplicates are generated?
Technically the neural net does not have a copy of the originals inside, it has their summed up gradients. The original model shrunk 4B images to a mere 4GB file, so 1 byte/image worth of information learned from each example, a measly pixel.
The model has learned un-copyrightable things like the shapes of various objects and animals, how they relate, their colours and textures. That should be protected. Let them finally learn how many fingers we have.