FaceDeer

And Wikimedia, in particular, is all about publishing data under open licenses. They want the data to be downloaded and used by others. That's what it's for.

And yet if one wishes to ask:

Did they have the right to do that?

That is inherently the realm of lawyer speak because you're asking what the law says about something.

The alternative is vigilantism and "mob justice." That's not a good thing.

Stable Diffusion was trained on the LIAON-5B image dataset, which as the name implies has around 5 billion images in it. The resulting model was around 3 gigabytes. If this is indeed a "compression" algorithm then it's the most magical and physics-defying ever, as it manages to compress images to less than one byte each.

Besides, even if we consider the model itself to be fine, they did not buy all the media they trained the model on.

That is a completely separate issue. You can sue them for copyright violation regarding the actual acts of copyright violation. If an artist steals a bunch of art books to study then sue him for stealing the art books, but you can't extend that to say that anything he drew based on that learning is also a copyright violation or that the knowledge inside his head is a copyright violation.

Training doesn't involve copying anything, so I don't see why they wouldn't. You need to copy something to violate copyright.

Right, but the point I'm trying to ask about is whether they're treating Ghibli specially here. People are reacting as if OpenAI is thumbing its nose specifically at Miyazaki here, whereas the impression I've got is that they simply opened the floodgates and dropped restrictions on styling in general.

Style has never been covered by copyright to begin with, so any concerns they might have had about being sued over style would have always been erring on the side of caution. They may simply think that the legal environment has calmed down enough that they won't be inundated with frivolous lawsuits any more.

Yes, I read the article. But it doesn't answer my question. Did OpenAI specifically enable Ghibli style, or did it remove the restrictions in general?

Everyone's pulling out Miyazaki's out-of-context quote about procedural animation and are interpreting this as some kind of personal attack against him in particular because of it, but unless OpenAI specifically made Ghibli style available without lifting restrictions on others I don't see a reason to assume that.

Also, an article that calls X "The Nazi Network" is not exactly the most reliable source. This isn't even about X.

Did they specifically allow "Ghibly style?" Or did they just loosen the restrictions on asking for styles in general, and Ghibly style just turned out to be the popular one that memes started snowballing around?

Style cannot be copyrighted.

And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.

This guy's court cases are widely misunderstood by the general public.

In a nutshell: he's a crank who is trying to tell the court "I don't hold a copyright to the thing my AI produced, my AI holds the copyright."

And the court tells him: "Only people (or legal persons, like corporations) can hold a copyright. Your AI cannot. If you say that you yourself don't either, we can't force you to have a copyright on it. So I guess that thing has no copyright and is therefore in the public domain."

And then everyone gasps and exclaims "the court just ruled that AI-generated things are in the public domain!"

Got a lot of people to click on it while raging, though, so it served its purpose.

In case anyone's interested in the source material, here's the press release it's going on about. The AI is about searching and analyzing evidence, it isn't fabricating anything that'll actually be used in court.

Volkswagen did okay. Mind you, only after Hitler's empire had collapsed and Hitler himself had eaten a bullet.

Elon, if you're listening...

Yeah, I'd much rather have random humans I don't know anything about making those "moral" decisions.

If you're already answered, "No," you may skip to the end.

So the purpose of this article is to convince people of a particular answer, not to actually evaluate the arguments pro and con.