Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement. The infringement is commercial distribution of copyrighted work. And yes, I do think you should be liable for whatever you distribute commercially, regardless of how you obtain it.


> Authoring any work, no matter how closely copied, is not an infringement

Nitpicking, but only unless it's not counterfeit material.

Claiming painting is from "famous painter X" while it's instead a copy it's an infringement.

How long before "famous painter X's new painting found in the attic of old lady"?


But in that case it's not the work that's the problem, but the misrepresentation (read lie) about the provenance.


and the fact that it is a replica

anyway, copying money is a crime, almost anywhere in the World, the simple act of making a copy is enough.

Money usually contain artworks

I would also not generate pictures of child pornography

There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images


Yes, selling an exact copy of a copyrighted work is an infringement (giving it away generally isn't). Creating a derivative work, or work in the same style, is fair use.

Generating a digital image of money isn't the same thing as counterfeiting currency.

> I would also not generate pictures of child pornography

Legality aside, why not? Who is harmed?

> There's a reason why SD apply censorship filters to generated images

I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML.


> I'm not sure there is. I don't think any one group of people is uniquely equipped to limit what images another group of people can generate with ML.

of course there is, you're free as long as you respect the rules.

https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/pull/36




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: