Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SulszBachFramed t1_j6wa7ii wrote

Reply to comment by znihilist in [R] Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Models by pm_me_your_pay_slips

You can make the same argument about lossy compression. Am I really infringing on copyright if I record an episode of House, re-encode it and redistribute it? It's not the 'original' episode, but a lossy copy of it. What if I compress it in a zip file and distribute that? In that case, I am only sharing something that can imperfectly recreate the original. The zip file itself does not resemble a video at all.

4

Ronny_Jotten t1_j6wndrm wrote

The test for copyright infringment is whether it's "substantially similar", not "exactly the same".

2

SulszBachFramed t1_j6wp97b wrote

Right, hence why its relevant to large models trained on huge datasets. If the model can reconstruct data such that it is substantially similar to the original, then we have a problem. Whether from the viewpoint of copyright infringement or privacy law (gdpr).

4

znihilist t1_j6xcp1i wrote

Good point, but the way I see it these two things look very similar but don't end up being similar in the way we thought or wanted. Compression takes one input and generates an output, the object (the file if you want) is only one thing, an episode of house. We'd argue that both versions are loosely identical, just differ in the underlying presentation (their 0's and 1's are different but they render the same object). Also, that object can't generate another episode of house (that aired a day early), or a none existing episode of house that he takes over the world, or where he's a Muppet. As the diffusion models don't have a copy, then the comparison falls on that particular aspect as none-applicable.

I do think, the infringement aspect is going to end up being by the user and not by the tool. Akin to how just because your TV can play pirated content, we assign the blame on the user and not the manufacturer of the TV. So it may end up being that creating these models is fine, but if you recreate something copyrighted, then that will be on you.

Either way, this is going to be one interesting supreme court decision (because I think it is definitely going there).

0

JigglyWiener t1_j6xy6ys wrote

Infringing content can be created with any number of tools and we don’t sue photoshop for not detecting someone trying to alter images of what is clearly Mickey Mouse. We sue the person when they are making money off of the sale of copyrighted material.

It’s not worth chasing copyright for Pennies

3

Ronny_Jotten t1_j6yenlh wrote

Adobe doesn't ship Photoshop with a button that produces an image of Mickey Mouse. They would be sued by Disney. The AI models do. They are not the same. It seems unlikely that Disney will find it "not worth chasing"; they spend millions defending their intellectual property.

1

JigglyWiener t1_j6yxwhz wrote

The models don’t come with buttons that do anything. They are tools capable only of what the software developers permit to enter the models and what users request.

If we go down the road of regulating training and capacity to do x, you’ll have to file lawsuits against every artist on behalf of every copyright holder over the IP inside the artist’s head.

These cases are going to fall apart and copyright holders are going to go after platforms that don’t put reasonable filters in place.

1

Ronny_Jotten t1_j6z9axn wrote

> The models don’t come with buttons that do anything. They are tools capable only of what the software developers permit to enter the models and what users request.

If you prompt an AI with "Mickey Mouse" - no more effort than clicking a button - you'll get an image of Mickey Mouse that violates intellectual property laws. The image, or the instructions for producing it, is contained inside the model, because many copyrighted images were digitally copied into the training system by the organization that created the model. It's just not remotely the same thing as someone using the paintbrush tool in Photoshop to draw a picture of Mickey Mouse themselves.

> If we go down the road of regulating training and capacity to do x, you’ll have to file lawsuits against every artist on behalf of every copyright holder over the IP inside the artist’s head.

I don't think you have a grasp of copyright law. That is a tired and debunked argument. Humans are allowed to look at things, and remember them. Humans are not allowed to make copies of things using a machine - including loading digital copies into a computer to train an AI model - unless it's covered by a fair use exemption. Humans are not the same as machines, in the law, or in reality.

> These cases are going to fall apart

I don't think they will. Especially for the image-generating AIs, it's going to be difficult to prove fair use in the training, if the output is used to compete economically with artists or image owners like Getty, whose works have been scanned in, and affect the market for that work. That's one of the four major requirements for fair use.

1