<story><title>I used Stable Diffusion and Dreambooth to create an art portrait of my dog</title><url>https://www.shruggingface.com/blog/how-i-used-stable-diffusion-and-dreambooth-to-create-a-painted-portrait-of-my-dog</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>quadcore</author><text>From what I read on the internet, people assume AI generated art is a difficult question legaly speaking. Some literally assume artists complain only because there are out competed.&lt;p&gt;I disagree - I think that AI generative art is an easy case of copyright infrigement and an easy win for a bunch of good lawyers.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s because you can&amp;#x27;t find an artist for a generated picture other than the ones in the training set. If you can&amp;#x27;t find a new artist, then the picture belongs to the old ones, so to speak. I really dont see what&amp;#x27;s difficult with that case. I think the internet assume a bit to quickly it&amp;#x27;s a difficult question and a grey area when maybe it just isnt.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s noteworthy that Adobe did things differently than the others and the way they did things goes in the direction im describing here. Maybe it&amp;#x27;s just confirmation bias.</text></item><item><author>simonw</author><text>I love how much work went into this.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a great deal of pushback against AI art from the wider online art community at the moment, a lot of which is motivated by a sense of unfairness: if you&amp;#x27;re not going to put in the time and effort, why do you deserve to create such high equality imagery?&lt;p&gt;(I do not share this opinion myself, but it&amp;#x27;s something I&amp;#x27;ve seen a lot)&lt;p&gt;This is another great counter-example showing how much work it takes to get the best, deliberate results out of these tools.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dragonwriter</author><text>&amp;gt; I disagree - I think that AI generative art is an easy case of copyright infrigement and an easy win for a bunch of good lawyers.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; That’s because you can’t find an artist for a generated picture other than the ones in the training set.&lt;p&gt;First, that’s clearly not true when you are using ControlNet with the input being human generated, or even img2img with a human generated image, but second and more importantly…&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; If you can’t find a new artist, then the picture belongs to the old ones, so to speak.&lt;p&gt;That’s not how copyright law works. The clearest example (not particularly germane to the computer generation case, but clearly illustrative of the fact that “can’t find another artist” is far from dispositive) is Fair Use noncommercial timeshifting of an existing work: it is extremely clear there is no artist but that of the original work, and yet it is not copyright infringement.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I really dont see what’s difficult with that case.&lt;p&gt;You’ve basically invented a rule of thumb out of thin air, and observed that it would not be a difficult case if your rule of thumb was how copyright law works.&lt;p&gt;Your observation seems correct to that extent, the problem is that it has nothing to do with copyright law.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I think the internet assume a bit to quickly it’s a difficult question and a grey area when maybe it just isn’t.&lt;p&gt;IP law experts have said that the Fair Use argument is hard to resolve.&lt;p&gt;Assuming the lawsuits currently ongoing aren’t settled, we’ll know when they are resolved what the answer is.</text></comment>
<story><title>I used Stable Diffusion and Dreambooth to create an art portrait of my dog</title><url>https://www.shruggingface.com/blog/how-i-used-stable-diffusion-and-dreambooth-to-create-a-painted-portrait-of-my-dog</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>quadcore</author><text>From what I read on the internet, people assume AI generated art is a difficult question legaly speaking. Some literally assume artists complain only because there are out competed.&lt;p&gt;I disagree - I think that AI generative art is an easy case of copyright infrigement and an easy win for a bunch of good lawyers.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s because you can&amp;#x27;t find an artist for a generated picture other than the ones in the training set. If you can&amp;#x27;t find a new artist, then the picture belongs to the old ones, so to speak. I really dont see what&amp;#x27;s difficult with that case. I think the internet assume a bit to quickly it&amp;#x27;s a difficult question and a grey area when maybe it just isnt.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s noteworthy that Adobe did things differently than the others and the way they did things goes in the direction im describing here. Maybe it&amp;#x27;s just confirmation bias.</text></item><item><author>simonw</author><text>I love how much work went into this.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a great deal of pushback against AI art from the wider online art community at the moment, a lot of which is motivated by a sense of unfairness: if you&amp;#x27;re not going to put in the time and effort, why do you deserve to create such high equality imagery?&lt;p&gt;(I do not share this opinion myself, but it&amp;#x27;s something I&amp;#x27;ve seen a lot)&lt;p&gt;This is another great counter-example showing how much work it takes to get the best, deliberate results out of these tools.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>circuit10</author><text>It’s not as simple as that though because the algorithm does learn by itself and mostly just uses the training data to score itself against, it doesn’t directly copy it as some people seem to think. It can end up learning to copy things if it sees them enough times though&lt;p&gt;“you can&amp;#x27;t find an artist for a generated picture other than the ones in the training set. If you can&amp;#x27;t find a new artist, then the picture belongs to the old ones, so to speak”&lt;p&gt;I don’t think that’s valid on its own as a way to completely discount considering how directly it’s using the data. As an extreme example, what if I averaged all the colours in the training data together and used the resulting colour as the seed for some randomly generated fractal or something? You could apply the same arguments - there is no artist except the original ones in the training set - and yet I don’t think any reasonable person would say that the result obviously belongs to every single copyright owner from the training set</text></comment>