top | item 34413023

(no title)

totony | 3 years ago

Crazy how everyone is sueing stability ai but no one is sueing openai. Is this how society rewards openness? This will just end up with more concentration of power

discuss

order

HillRat|3 years ago

If you want to create a legal precedent, you go after the player where you have the better case and they have fewer resources. Get the law on your side and then you can go after the bigger players.

Curious to see where this goes; I feel like the UK venue is going to be relatively more friendly to Getty (in the US, I’d be comfortable with a transformative fair-use argument, but I don’t know what the analogues are in UK law).

anticensor|3 years ago

Fair dealing in the UK (and Europe also) is far more limited.

colesantiago|3 years ago

OpenAI at least got permission from Shutterstock.

"The data we licensed from Shutterstock was critical to the training of DALL-E,” said Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO."

https://www.shutterstock.com/press/20435

papichulo4|3 years ago

OK, so this might still play out as a win.

- Stability AI pays Getty a fee, which they really should, to some degree/percentage, if they're making money off this.

- But the amount should be for a proper use license, rather than focus on being punitive. Perhaps they work out another kind of deal. This is what the execs figure out together.

- Then they re-train on the entire set, sans watermark, now with the full blessing of Getty, and the resulting Stable Diffusion v3.0 release ends up being mind blowing!

ImprobableTruth|3 years ago

I mean, duh? Why would anyone with half a brain sue Midjourney, when it's unknown what it's trained on, let alone OpenAI, who are additionally backed by Microsoft? It's pretty clear what case has the best chance.

AuryGlenz|3 years ago

At this point, Midjourney v4 very well might only be trained on other Midjourney images. I would think that legally that would make things even murkier.