News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her turned into an AI model. Parent comment

Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by int_19h on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @03:19AM (#33432275)
No, since it's not a derived work.

And if you can come up with a model that can reproduce images exactly without first getting trained on them, it wouldn't be a derived work, either.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by chii on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @04:48AM (#33432875)
> No, since it's not a derived work.

but why is the set of numbers in a matrix considered derived?

I can trivially derive the number pi.

My original point is that just because something contains the information does not imply that it violates copyright.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t... by int_19h on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @11:49AM (#33437767)
Because said set of numbers is produced via a training process that has the original as an input, and a different input would produce a different set of numbers.

You're correct that merely containing the information would not violate copyright - it's all about how that information was produced.

[ Parent | on HN ]