I’m saying; if you’re covering a court case, don’t go off on a tangent and start saying things which are misleading or false with regard to the case.
> I think…
This is precisely my point. Most people don’t care what I think; or, you, or the OP on this topic.
Opinions are thick and fast.
What people care about is what the court rules.
This adds the caveat "as far as I can tell". That's a caveat that the capability to produce Getty outputs has been removed, it can be tested and amended if new information comes to light.
>What people care about is what the court rules.
Courts also rely on experts and expert testimony, the judge here is even citing a law professor's opinion. The idea that judges never rely on legal experts and commentators is strange.
If it produced images identical or highly similar to the copyrighted work, it would be similar to you making a copy and giving it to someone without paying royalties.
The article also shows an example of it reproducing their trademark.
Edit: Rephrased to be more clear.
I don't understand why I keep seeing people roll stuff out like 'should I be lobotomized' as some sort of attempt to distract from this just being a dispute over copyright minimalism/maximalism.
Then it is creative. It is doing meaningful work on top of the basic facts it learned. The facts and the style can't be copyrighted.
Can I download you via a URL?
If not this analogy is completely meaningless. You and stable diffusion are just too different.
You can download an LLM trained on my writings. And I have a speech model, too.
It won't be much longer until we have brain scans of people that are turned into some form of generative system.
I think we need an entirely new approach to copyright. You can't copyright a brain, and weights are closer to that than they are pirated digital archives.