For what it's worth, the argument made by another notable stable diffusion lawsuit [1] is that diffusion is basically a form of compression no different than an MP3 or a JPEG. They've clearly put a lot of effort into materials to explain how diffusion works, in order to attempt to convince a courtroom of that.

I think they've got a decent shot at it, personally, but who knows. I can see it, but it is hard for me to look at the insane stuff these things generate and try to think "that's just a compression of existing works and not something new."

These will certainly be interesting precedents either way.

[1]: https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/

It's not just a compression of existing works. But when it can retrieve near-verbatim copies of existing works with a textual description of them? It is a compression of existing works and that's the problem.

> diffusion is basically a form of compression no different than an MP3 or a JPEG

Well that’s going to be contested. AI are similar to compression algorithms, not compressed data.

Compressed data would record the difference between the AI prediction and the data you’re trying to compress. You need both to reproduce the original image.