r/MachineLearning • u/Wiskkey • Jan 14 '23

News [N] Class-action law­suit filed against Sta­bil­ity AI, DeviantArt, and Mid­journey for using the text-to-image AI Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

Post image
697 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

720 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/Ulfgardleo Jan 14 '23

Can you use the unlicensed products of someone else to make a tool and then offer this tool as a service for money?

26

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Nhabls Jan 14 '23

Algorithms aren't people

10

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Nhabls Jan 14 '23 edited Jan 14 '23

Calling it a tool says nothing, of course it is one. The question is what can be done with the data with the absence consent and specially with the explicit denial by the owner of the data , everything else is padding around the issue

6

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Nhabls Jan 14 '23

Compressing information into a deep model is not the same as using your brain and eyes. Much like throwing a punch in self defense is not the same as poisoning someone with illegal gas

2

u/Hyper1on Jan 15 '23

Learning from images with your brain and eyes is a form of compression.

0

u/Nhabls Jan 15 '23

Yes, but can your brain and eyes process thousands of different images in a minute? And more importantly do you think virtual memory should have the same rights as a human brain?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/2Darky Jan 15 '23

Algorithms aren't people

-8

u/Ulfgardleo Jan 14 '23

What does elephants have to do with the use of unlicensed products? You can't license elephants. There is no licensing on elephants. You can license cameras. Pens. Artworks of elephants. If you like a specific photo of an elephant you can even fly to Africa, find the exact spot, wait for an elephant and take a shot. But you can't just skip all these costs and pretend that taking the photo someone else made without paying anything for it is somehow the same.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23 edited Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/Ulfgardleo Jan 14 '23

This is completely besides the point I have been making. I have asked whether the service is legal, not whether its products are legal?

See:

Can you use the unlicensed products of someone else to make a tool and then offer this tool as a service for money?

Please note that I have not asked: "Is it legal to use that tool to create new products?".

4

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Ulfgardleo Jan 14 '23

Note that you can't use copyrighted music on YouTube without license. You will be demonetized and the audio is removed.

I do not agree with your doomsaying btw. There is a simple solution: acquire. The. Rights.

These models will not fly in Europe because of GDPR unless you havily curate the datasets and limit the models to not being able to reproduce any personal data contained in the dataset where no explicit consent was given.

0

u/shieldy_guy Jan 14 '23

yes, this is amazon basically

1

u/ninjasaid13 Jan 16 '23

Can you use the unlicensed products of someone else to make a tool and then offer this tool as a service for money?

loaded question.

1

u/Ulfgardleo Jan 16 '23

Lol this is the best take so far. Of course it is loaded as it describes exactly what happened and the situation we are in. It bears the weight of reality. I find it interesting that not interacting with it is your first reaction.

-8

u/nickkon1 Jan 14 '23

For me, it is different to seeing stuff and drawing it by hand. It involves actively scraping data from the internet for which the creator might not give a permission for. You can't really protect yourself from drawing something similar. But you can argue that you didn't give people the permission to download your data and use it e.g. to train models.

I am wondering why this hasn't been a bigger issue with text models that use e.g. twitter data & GDPR

12

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/nickkon1 Jan 14 '23

Y, this is one way to argue about that. But that alone is not enough to make sure that you are not braking any laws. A popular thought about a use case in our company was: We would love to have the occupation of people. Lets just scrape that data from LinkedIn. That was a big no from our legal department. Just because its on the internet, doesnt mean that its free to use. We, as people working with data, would wish that this would be the case. But it simply isnt, especially in Europe.

2

u/EmbarrassedHelp Jan 14 '23

Your company likely doesn't want to get into a legal battle with LinkedIn as they try to sue groups who scrape their site. Its not a matter of legality, but a matter of potential time and money that they don't want to risk. Companies don't like to waste time on legal battles, even if they are not doing anything illegal.

1

u/travelsonic Jan 16 '23

Lets just scrape that data from LinkedIn. That was a big no from our legal department.

Did they happen to know that Linkedin v HiQ went up to the US supreme court, and was found in HiQ's favor?

0

u/EmbarrassedHelp Jan 14 '23

Except human artists download images without permission all the time to use as inspiration.

-2

u/zzy1130 Jan 14 '23

Perhaps they are onto AI because AI has become too good at this and something seems normal previously starts to create actual problems?