undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjacquesm3y ago0 comments

> They'll more likely ask if it isn't clearly fair use similar to Sony v Universal and Authors Guild v Google and then present evidence of significant non-infringing commercial use.

Those were not cases about 'generators' but about 'aggregators', a completely different class of application.

0 comments

williamcotton3y ago

There's no existing legal doctrine around "generators" and "aggregators" but there is around "commercially significant non-infringing use". Something like what you're saying would need to be established by the higher courts.

jacquesmOP3y ago

Of course there is. You can't infringe without publishing a work and to pass off the work of others as a new creation because it has been shredded and then sewn back together again .

Those cases hinged on republishing works or significant parts of works as themselves, they weren't trying to pass them off as new, original works in their own right.

And this is exactly what this court case is about, whether or not Stable Diffusion ultimately is just another - complex - form of mechanical transformation or whether it creates original work.

In my opinion the only things all of these companies get wrong is that they (1) failed to obtain consent from the suppliers of the inputs to their models and (2) that they themselves have not contributed even a little bit of the input data.

The ultimate laugh test is whether or not these companies themselves slap (C) signs on everything and are willing to litigate when they believe their rights are the ones that are infringed upon. I hope for an outcome where opt-in will become the norm, that would seem to be a reasonable middle ground.

Finally, note that copyright is not a local concept but a global one - and has been for a long time - and that anything that happens on that front will have to ratified in a different forum than some US court.

williamcotton3y ago

> And this is exactly what this court case is about, whether or not Stable Diffusion ultimately is just another - complex - form of mechanical transformation or whether it creates original work.

No, it's not at all. This court case is about:

Plaintiffs Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc. (collectively “Stability”); Midjourney, Inc. (“Midjourney”); and DeviantArt, Inc. (“DeviantArt”) (all collectively “Defendants”) for:

1.) direct and vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501;

2.) violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205 (the “DMCA”);

3.) violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code section 3344;

4.) violation of Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

5.) and declaratory relief.

So for each of those complaints the defense needs to establish that their actions fit a different narrative, one that is legally coherent and against the claims for damages.

So for copyright infringement they are going to go for a fair use defense. I'm sure they won't only reference VCRs and Google Books! I'm certain they won't talk about "aggregators" and "generators" because this is not a Supreme Court opinion. They're going to use the established legal doctrines. I'm sure that their lawyers have plenty of other relevant case law at their disposal.

As for DMCA and rights of publicity, this seems to be what motivated Stability AI to adhere to "takedown requests" as they probably had some lawyer whispering in their ear that they probably don't want to spend the time and money testing this in court if it doesn't really impact the marketability of their tool.

I haven't ready anything about the Unfair Competition law in California.

1 more reply

ROTMetro3y ago

I posit that none of these works will be copyrightable because to be copyrightable you need at least an 'anonymous artist' to assign their copyright to a company, and there is no 'anonymous artist' in these scenarios (a prompt writer can not be considered an anonymous artist, at most I guess they could try to copyright the language in their prompt. But the output, nope. Doesn't meet the requirements for copyright).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

williamcotton3y ago

jacquesmOP3y ago

Of course there is. You can't infringe without publishing a work and to pass off the work of others as a new creation because it has been shredded and then sewn back together again .

Those cases hinged on republishing works or significant parts of works as themselves, they weren't trying to pass them off as new, original works in their own right.

And this is exactly what this court case is about, whether or not Stable Diffusion ultimately is just another - complex - form of mechanical transformation or whether it creates original work.

williamcotton3y ago

> And this is exactly what this court case is about, whether or not Stable Diffusion ultimately is just another - complex - form of mechanical transformation or whether it creates original work.

No, it's not at all. This court case is about:

1.) direct and vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501;

2.) violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205 (the “DMCA”);

3.) violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code section 3344;

4.) violation of Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

5.) and declaratory relief.

So for each of those complaints the defense needs to establish that their actions fit a different narrative, one that is legally coherent and against the claims for damages.

I haven't ready anything about the Unfair Competition law in California.

1 more reply

ROTMetro3y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse