[friedman23]

It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.

[hansihe]

We have no idea if images by Stable Diffusion violates copyright, there is no legal precedent.

[bioemerl]

Technically we do have examples of stable diffusion violating copyright, it will generate some exact clone images if you give it the right prompt and that image exists a few hundred times in the training data.

[josephg]

That’s a sloppy answer. Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now.

That’s kind of the whole point of this debate. Should we change the laws and if so, how?

[avereveard]

Copyright already cover characters and stories. Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted

Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing.

I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition already without violating the content owner copyright.

Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me.

Are there cases where an ai and a human can generate the same media but which result in the media having different legality?

[friedman23]

> Right and wrong isn’t defined by how copyright law is written right now

It's a good thing I never mentioned right or wrong.

[coastermug]

Incidentally, copyright law etc on fonts is very interesting. Many places license their fonts via in-page JavaScript. However, I believe that such a protection against the font designer doesn’t necessarily apply if for instance you use the font to create a logo. ( I’m sure I’ve missed some nuance here.)

[fastball]

Stable Diffusion isn't violating copyright for the same reason artists aren't violating copyright when they look at a bunch of images and make something similar.