undefined | Better HN

0 pointsminimaxir2y ago0 comments

The general argument (IANAL) is that it's Fair Use, in the same vein as Google Images or Internet Archive scraping and storing text/images. Especially since the outputs of generated images are not 1:1 to their source inputs, so it could be argued that it's a unique derivative work. The current lawsuits against Stability AI are testing that, although I am skeptical they'll succeed (one of the lawsuits argues that Stable Diffusion is just "lossy compression" which is factually and technically wrong).

There is an irony, however, that many of the AI art haters tend to draw fanart of IP they don't own. And if Fair Use protections are weakened, their livelihood would be hurt far more than those of AI artists.

The Copilot case/lawsuit IMO is stronger because the associated code output is a) provably verbatim and b) often has explicit licensing and therefore intent on its usage.

0 comments

bendmorris2y ago

>it could be argued that it's a unique derivative work

Creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image requires permission from the copyright holder (i.e., a license) which many of these services do not have. So the real question is whether AI-generated "art" counts as a derivative work of the inputs, and we just don't know yet.

>b) often has explicit licensing and therefore intent on its usage

It doesn't matter. In the absence of a license, the default is "you can't use this." It's not "do whatever you want with it." Licenses grant (limited) permission to use; without one you have no permission (except fair use, etc. which are very specifically defined.)

simonw2y ago

"Creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image requires permission from the copyright holder"

That's why "fair use" is the key concept here. Under US copyright law "fair use" does not require a license. The argument is that AI generated imagery qualifies as "fair use" - that's what's about to be tested in the courts.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/stable-diffusion... is the best explanation I've seen of the legal situation as it stands.

adamm2552y ago

If a person trained themselves on the same resources, and picked up a brush or a camera and created some stunning art in a similar vein, would we look at that as a derivative work? Very interesting discussion. Art of all forms are inspired by those who came before.

Inspired/trained… I think these could be seen as the same.

asddubs2y ago

I don't think we should hold technology to the same standards as humans. I'm also allowed to memorize what someone said, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to record someone without their knowledge (depending on the location)

bendmorris2y ago

Training a human and training a model may use the same verb but are very different.

If the person directly copied another work, that's a derivative work and requires a license. But if a person learned an abstract concept by studying art and later created art, it's not derivative.

Computers can't learn abstract concepts. What they can do is break down existing images and then numerically combine them to produce something else. The inputs are directly used in the outputs. It's literally derivative, whether or not the courts decide it's legally so.

3 more replies

dragonwriter2y ago

> Creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image requires permission from the copyright holder

It does not (in US law) if it falls within Fair Use, which is an exception to what would otherwise be the exclusive rights of copyright holders.

dragonwriter2y ago

> Especially since the outputs of generated images are not 1:1 to their source inputs, so it could be argued that it’s a unique derivative work.

I think what you mean to say is that the argument is that both the models themselves and (in many cases) the output from the models, to the extent it might otherwise be a derivative work of one or more the input images, are transformative uses. [0]

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transf...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsminimaxir2y ago0 comments

The Copilot case/lawsuit IMO is stronger because the associated code output is a) provably verbatim and b) often has explicit licensing and therefore intent on its usage.

0 comments

bendmorris2y ago

>it could be argued that it's a unique derivative work

>b) often has explicit licensing and therefore intent on its usage

simonw2y ago

"Creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image requires permission from the copyright holder"

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/stable-diffusion... is the best explanation I've seen of the legal situation as it stands.

adamm2552y ago

Inspired/trained… I think these could be seen as the same.

asddubs2y ago

bendmorris2y ago

Training a human and training a model may use the same verb but are very different.

If the person directly copied another work, that's a derivative work and requires a license. But if a person learned an abstract concept by studying art and later created art, it's not derivative.

3 more replies

dragonwriter2y ago

> Creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image requires permission from the copyright holder

It does not (in US law) if it falls within Fair Use, which is an exception to what would otherwise be the exclusive rights of copyright holders.

dragonwriter2y ago

> Especially since the outputs of generated images are not 1:1 to their source inputs, so it could be argued that it’s a unique derivative work.

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transf...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse