News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by kevingadd on Friday December 08, 2023 @10:58PM (#38578418)
Stable Diffusion isn't a human being. It's not even sentient. It's a system designed to synthesize images, and it was trained using images authored by human beings - without the rightsholders' consent. This has nothing to do with lobotomies. You have rights as a human that a piece of software does not have.

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.

Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by artninja1988 on Friday December 08, 2023 @11:20PM (#38578541)
And the people training stabile diffusion shouldn't need the authors consent to train on their works.
Re:High Court rules that Getty vs. Stability AI case can pro... by monocasa on Friday December 08, 2023 @11:59PM (#38578749)
Copyright has always made a distinction between the copies you make in a person's head and the copies you make into another work generated by a person.