Re:Stable Diffusion Frivolous Litigation
by williamcotton on Sunday January 15, 2023 @02:58PM
(#34392679)
Exactly, the person coaxing copyrighted material from the latent space is liable.
Now, a tool that burdens an individual with a torrent of copy-written material might not be worth using, but that is separate from the data embedded in the latent space of the model itself.
Re:Stable Diffusion Frivolous Litigation
by godelski on Sunday January 15, 2023 @04:21PM
(#34393554)
> the person coaxing copyrighted material from the latent space
I'd be careful with this terminology. These models are able to generate more diversity in data than they are able to memorize. So I just want to make sure readers do not read this as "copying and combining things to make an image" in a copy/paste manner rather than the same manner that humans do (very different mechanisms) of having a broader understanding of shapes and fuzzy concepts. But I'm also a generative modeling researcher and so I'm biased to be pedantic.
Re:Stable Diffusion Frivolous Litigation
by williamcotton on Sunday January 15, 2023 @05:15PM
(#34394169)
Thanks for the clarification!
This then would put the responsibility on the creator, not the software. If I use a prompt "Mickey Mouse fighting Thanos" then the images produced are clearly derivative. But is this fair use? There's plenty of fan art out there like that. In fact, I typed that string into google and got fan artwork of Mickey as Thanos and the infinity stones are different media centers that Disney controls[0]. Making the image quite a high quality parity. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't feel like this image should be illegal. If so, doesn't that make this conversation far more complex than what you're writing here? I'd agree if I was trying to sell pictures of Mickey Mouse and claim to be Disney (and that there was no case for parody), but this does seem like a really hard line to draw and I don't think people are being honest about that.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong/comments/9z7a...