On: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­f...

[akjetma]

there are some artists with very strong, recognizable styles. if you provide one of these artists' name in your prompt and get a result back that employs their strong, recognizable style, i think that demonstrates that the network has a latent representation of the artists work stored inside of it.

[eega → akjetma]

So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to paint in the style of another artist? I‘m no lawyer, but I‘m pretty sure that is completely legss as long as you don’t claim your paintings ARE from the other artist.

[andybak → akjetma]

I was with you right up until the final sentence.

How did "style" become "work"?

[WA → andybak]

Because in some cases, adding a style prompt gives almost the original image: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_...

[andybak → WA]

And yet nobody has managed to demonstrate reconstruction of a large enough section of a work that is still under copyright to prove the point.

The only thing so far discovered is either a) older public domain works nearly fully reproduced b) small fragments of newer works or c) "likenesses"

[limitedsupply → andybak]

That’s the key question of the lawsuit IMO!

[realusername → akjetma]

No that doesn't, that demonstrates that the model has a abstract features and characteristics of this artists stored in the model, not work.

You can't bring back the training images no matter how hard you try.

[astrange → akjetma]

Or it means their style is so easy to recognize that you can see it even when it doesn't exist.

The most common example of this (Greg Rutkowski) is not in StableDiffusion's training set.

[djbebs → akjetma]

That seems to indicate to me that the original work is actually not under copyright, since if it is the only method of achieving such an image in such a style, then there is no originality to be copyrighted.