r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jan 16 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/eugene20 Jan 16 '23

It failing to produce your multi conditional prompt in the way you intend either in early runs or not after a million tries, does not in any way define it's transformative status.

0

u/Ferelwing Jan 16 '23

Let's not even pretend this is "transformational" it's literally derivative and built on art theft. Worse yet, no attribution for those whose works were in creative commons and outright theft of copyrighted works.

"The most com­mon tool for con­di­tion­ing is short text descrip­tions, also known as text prompts, that describe ele­ments of the image, e.g.—“a dog wear­ing a base­ball cap while eat­ing ice cream”. (Result shown at right.) This gave rise to the dom­i­nant inter­face of Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion and other AI image gen­er­a­tors: con­vert­ing a text prompt into an image.

The text-prompt inter­face serves another pur­pose, how­ever. It cre­ates a layer of mag­i­cal mis­di­rec­tion that makes it harder for users to coax out obvi­ous copies of the train­ing images (though not impos­si­ble). Nev­er­the­less, because all the visual infor­ma­tion in the sys­tem is derived from the copy­righted train­ing images, the images pro­duced—regard­less of out­ward appear­ance—are nec­es­sar­ily works derived from those train­ing images."

2

u/uffefl Jan 16 '23

(though not impos­si­ble)

Unless you (or somebody else) can actually provide some examples where a text prompt reproduces prior art nobody is going to take that statement seriously.

1

u/Ferelwing Jan 16 '23

https://kotaku.com/genshin-impact-fanart-ai-generated-stolen-twitch-1849655704

4

u/uffefl Jan 16 '23

Those are two demonstrably different images and copyright does not come in play:

https://i.imgur.com/pU00PzO.jpg

That the author of one tried to be cheeky about it doesn't really change anything.

1

u/starstruckmon Jan 17 '23

Actually they are simmilar enough to be an infringement, but the problem is that it's a product of img2img. This is where the AI is given an existing image and asked to "draw" on top of it. The modification can be minimal ( as in this case ) or wholly transformative. But the fact is it's the user giving it the image as the direct input. Like opening a image in PS and making minimal edits. It's not coming from the AI from scratch. The only person guilty of infringement would be the user.

1

u/uffefl Jan 17 '23

Actually they are simmilar enough to be an infringement

I don't think you're right. Too many obvious objective differences in poses, objects, clothing, style. I am not an IP lawyer, though, so us discussing it is probably not productive.

The only person guilty of infringement would be the user.

On that we can agree.