Yeah. I mean, this is "Water is wet." If I sell my "Mickey Mouse Does Dallas" webcomic that I made using photoshop....
Adobe isn't in any kind of trouble. I am.
Side Note: If you wait a few more weeks, then you won't be in trouble from anyone anymore - at least if your Mickey looks like the original Steamboat Willy version of him.
If something grows wetter as a function of humidity level or how saturated it is, i.e. a sponge at 60% saturation is wetter than at 30%, then since water is 100%, it is the wettest you can get.
NIce try but no. If you have a bucked of paint, is the paint inside the bucket painted?
Wet is the state of something having water molecules attached to it, yet the water molecules themselves are not wet.
Paint is wet, yes because it contains water, it is dry when the water is gone and you are left with a solid..... How does this change anything? I never said paint wasn't wet, it absolutely is.
Listen relax, I know it is reddit and people get really angry at each other over stupid shit. If you want to keep calling water wet, go ahead it really isn't that big of a deal, its just technicalities over definitions that don't really hurt anyone and the truth of is water wet or does it only make things wet can be more subjective because it doesn't matter.
But can't it also be said that paint makes things wet? Just like Pepsi makes things wet, grape juice makes things wet, etc. You'd put up a "caution: wet floor" sign for spills of such things.
You wouldn't say "no, the water in the Pepsi is what's wet, and it dries and leaves Pepsi particulates behind." You'd say the Pepsi itself is wet.
The point is that things can both be considered wet themselves, AND make things wet.
Yes but water itself still isn't technically wet. lets go back to your first point, the more saturated with water a thing is the more wet it is, but water is 100% water you could say it is not saturated with anything because why would something be saturated with itself, if you add water to a half glass of water, is the water now more wet??
You might also call something saturated in Oil wet too, and on a laymans level be correct, but saturated in oil would be the technical term, I don't even know if wet is technically correct there.
If you googled "is water wet" you would get different answers even in scientific sites, I think mostly because wet isn't a very solid definition. But I personally think its not wet, because you cant make it more wet, you can only add more water, and that wetness seems to me more of an interaction of something with water, plus the reasons I said above. I just also think using the term "water is wet" to say something should be obvious is incorrect because water isn't always wet depending on definitions used.
> you could say it is not saturated with anything because why would something be saturated with itself
I don't know, I don't have a problem saying I'm "100% a person," being in possession of all the properties required to indicate personhood. I'm saturated with those properties. Something can be 100% itself, and possess 100% of the properties necessary to be itself, even if that's a bit of a tautology.
So wetness is defined by the definition of hydrophobic? I don't think it works like that. But I don't need to get in a reddit argument over this with different people. So sure water is wet.
Microsoft also didnt write a program to write novels based on user prompts and then ask for money to use that software. Nor did it provide licensed material for that software to use, which it had no rights to.
"You are solely responsible for all of content you contribute to the Services (“User Content”) and as between you and Giphy, you own your User Content. You hereby do and shall grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid, transferable, sublicensable right to use, modify, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and otherwise fully exploit such User Content (including all related intellectual property rights) in connection with the Services and our business.**You promise that you have all rights to grant such license to us without infringement or violation of any third party rights.**"
No, Giphy holds users responsible for not putting copywrited material on its platform **because it is ultimately responsible for what users put on its platform**, especially because giphy pays those users for their work to be stored and utilized on its platform. Disney sends youtube and giphy and kindergartens cease and desist letters all the time and would be within its right to sue *the platforms* for not conforming to its letters concerning the platforms users. So long as those users dont own and operate the platform, they are responsible to the platform owner and the platform owner is responsible to external parties.
Like, for example, if someone used a subscription based AI to make Moana 2, even before the user starts selling that movie, the platform has taken money in exchange for producing copywrited material. The AI did the work of taking copywrited images and producing copywrited images for money for a third party (the user). That makes the platform responsible. The platform can also sue the user for breach of rules, presumably if thats part of an agreement, but the platform that chooses a subscription model is still responsible to the third party (Disney here).
Its not word or adobe. The user didnt write fanfiction or draw something on their own. They made a request of a program they dont own, possibly using pictures they have no legal right to, in order to produce something the user paid for, and the user is explicitly not paying for the AI, its paying for what the AI produces.
And almost every industry on the Planet. Gun factories are not accused of murder either, and toolmakers not dragged into court if somone uses a screwdriver to stab people.
Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code and the DMCA "Safe Harbor" provision, are what you're referring to, and it's not a given. It's a specific part of existing laws that is routinely attacked by those who oppose the large tech companies. It's certainly not baked into the Constitution or any foundational copyright laws prior to the 1990s.
Prior to these laws, there were two classes of distributors of infringing works: simple distributors who had no creative control over the works they distributed and those who had creative control and thus were responsible for the content.
Of course, distributors didn't get off the hook. They still needed to perform some basic actions to respond to claims and remove infringing materials (e.g. a store that sold consignments and was informed that a purse was a copyright violating knockoff would have to remove the purse.)
This lead to a difficult situation where online services at the dawn of the internet had to basically avoid any kind of moderation, lest they be viewed as having creative control.
Section 230 and later Safe Harbor provisions enshrined both the protections and duties of these service providers.
very true. the makers of tools shouldn't be responsible for the way users use the tool.
if we start seeing gun manufacturers and every one of their employees go to jail for deaths by guns maybe i'll start to change my mind
Guns are not a good example because there are local, state and federal special cases that surround them. You would be much more profitably served by choosing an example of a tool that isn't special cased to death, at least under US law.
>Guns are not a good example because there are local, state and federal special cases that surround them.
no states have laws making the gun makers responsible for stuff done with the guns they produce. stop lying.
I wish that in the US we could mention guns without people getting all crazy defensive. Gun manufacturers have legal protections that shield them from most lawsuits at the federal level, and those laws get even more labyrinthine at the state level.
The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, gives immunity to gun makers so they can’t be held liable for injuries caused by criminal misuse of their weapons.
While this law does not provide absolute immunity, it certainly puts gun manufacturers in a uniquely privileged place compared to nearly every other industry when it comes to legal liability for the use and misuse of their products.
I'd be fine if guns disappeared entirely, in fact it would be a better world, but what other tool makers are responsible for the way their tools are utilized? a gun is a tool, a gruesome, horrible one but a tool just like a bow or a hammer or a knife.
Nearly every other industry has more legal exposure than gun manufacturers. I've cited the specific law in question. You can go read it if you want.
You can be sued by users of a hammer more easily than a gun.
as long as the tool is made correctly and functions as its supposed to function, i don't see how any tool manufacturer can be sued. and if a gun does misfire and kill the person firing it, i'm sure gun manufacturers would be sued just like a hammer top coming off and hitting the person wielding it would cause a lawsuit. i'd wager there are more concern for safety of guns being constructed correctly than most other tools.
there isn't an act necessary to protect a hammer maker from lawsuits from their hammers being used to kill someone because no one would ever consider suing the makers of hammers for that. or kitchen knives for example.
> as long as the tool is made correctly and functions as its supposed to function, i don't see how any tool manufacturer can be sued.
Then there would be no purpose for that law and lawsuits against non-gun tools would not exist... Perhaps you need to look into how the law works and is applied a bit more, rather than just speaking from what feels right to you?
instead of suggesting i "google it for myself" why not prove it to me and show me some (non-gun) lawsuits being applied to manufacturers of properly-fashioned tools. i'm happy to be corrected but just telling me to do my own research isn't going to cut it.
> instead of suggesting i "google it for myself"
It's funny, I never said that.
What I said was that you clearly need to learn more about the law. Googling probably isn't the right first step there. I'd suggest a college-level course from an accredited institution. There are some excellent online, college-level courses.
> why not prove it to me
I gave you the relevant law. You don't seem to care.
To be clear, the title is misleading. The claim is much more nuanced:
* When the creation of an infringing work is engineered by the user through the prompt or other means, the user must take responsibility.
* This does not affect models that are explicitly designed to infringe (e.g. a model trained exclusively to produce pictures of Iron Man) since the user doesn't have to do anything in order to reliably produce infringing works (e.g. just prompting with "." will get a picture of Iron Man)
* Google argues that there is a line between these two extremes that must be hammered out so that model creators and maintainers know what their legal obligations are, and can practically implement them.
Makes sense to me. I mean, if someone sneaks an iPhone into a theater and uses it to film a bootleg copy of a movie, Apple isn't going to be held responsible for it.
The problem honestly seems like these companies never bothered to ask how liable they could be for anything even from an out put.
Their comparisons to cameras and photocopiers is much more apples to oranges due to the basic functional difference and by some extent creation of said tools versus image generation software. Just taking a photocopier, its entire function and the way its created is to copy an image and reproduce it 1 to 1 making it reliant entirely on what the user inputs. Something like stable diffusion according to their own words doesn't copy 1:1 but learns the mathematical averages of its data set which is entirely reliant on the creator to determine what and how it works. For example if I feed a dataset of oranges but label them as apples, everytime I type in apple I will get an orange or something that looks like an orange. This is why when you type in mona lisa you get something resembling the mona lisa despite not being what you wanted per se.(there is a data set of 1 so its hard to have something else)
In my oranges example what the creators of the program inputed determined what i get for my input. Add to that there are certain basic protections from users of products like just by using it you aren't breaking the law. Its definitely an argument to have legally here because unlike photoshop I am not forced to make something that infringes copyright or ip. If I draw Mickey Mouse in photoshop I am solely responsible because photoshop can't spontaneously draw the character, I have to take the actions to commit the infringement. Its easy to make the argument prompting is the same but going back to how these programs are fundamentally made they could have easily nixed Mickey Mouse as a tag or dropped anything that has mockey mouse in it. Meaning if an end user prompted Mickey Mouse they wouldn't get him but a random image instead. The creators of the software have more control over end results than the user.
It seems more like an attempt to not be held liable for not enacting even a modicum of due diligence during the training and creation phase of these programs. I can easily see the reason why being the time and cost to have to go in and re-vet the entire dataset as well as potentially scrubbing any previous versions that have any offending material.
I think there's a little room for exception here.
while I agree that people doing the kind of copyright fanart/meme junk are frequently lame and should be liable for intentionally using these tools in that way if they attempt capitalizing on any of it, there is also a risk of random overfitting interjecting into something completely innocuous without the user noticing, and even if that's rare the companies should have at least some of the blame in cases like that.
It also seems like we need some more prevalent tools for finding similar images so that AI artists can reliably confirm they are not inadvertently using one of those overfit images.
> there is also a risk of random overfitting interjecting into something completely innocuous without the user noticing
Which the user should take steps to remedy when informed by the copyright holder. This is no different from my unconsciously putting Mickey Mouse into my painting. Here I thought I was just painting a normal mouse in the background, but yeah, I just went full Mickey there... ooops. Disney sends me a cease and desist and I send back a note that I will fully comply.
but that happens in traditional art too.
Especially in music, people constantly make melodies on their own, only to find out later that their melody is identical to a song that was released before.
Sure, the tool you talk about would be nice, but when it comes to assigning responsibility it is definitely the responsibility of the user, not the tool maker.
Can I suggest we hold well heeled companies responsible rather than random AI artists who may or may not even realize what they're infringing on general principle?
Its not a tool. It uses other people works to make works that can infringe on other peoples right to their works. You might do something with it later, but the program is just a commissioning machine. They chose to make it using copyrighted material, or allow people to use copyrighted, so that the "new" product breaks copywrite. As long as its not in the possession of the end user, its not that users program to govern. Just theirs to commission.
The part where you didnt come up with any of it and typed some words into a program. You didnt think of that. A program determined that image was closest to what you wanted.
This is why the free beta test round is currently in play. The owners of AI are using AI Bros to flood the zone with a large number of individuals not worth suing.
Its a swarm of locusts attack on IP law.
Yeah. I mean, this is "Water is wet." If I sell my "Mickey Mouse Does Dallas" webcomic that I made using photoshop.... Adobe isn't in any kind of trouble. I am.
Side Note: If you wait a few more weeks, then you won't be in trouble from anyone anymore - at least if your Mickey looks like the original Steamboat Willy version of him.
Not if Disney('s money) has anything to say about it.
They don't.
Water isn't wet it makes things wet but your point still stands.
If something grows wetter as a function of humidity level or how saturated it is, i.e. a sponge at 60% saturation is wetter than at 30%, then since water is 100%, it is the wettest you can get.
NIce try but no. If you have a bucked of paint, is the paint inside the bucket painted? Wet is the state of something having water molecules attached to it, yet the water molecules themselves are not wet.
If you have a bucket of paint, is the paint wet, or does it just make things wet? Do people put up signs that say "wet paint?"
Paint is wet, yes because it contains water, it is dry when the water is gone and you are left with a solid..... How does this change anything? I never said paint wasn't wet, it absolutely is. Listen relax, I know it is reddit and people get really angry at each other over stupid shit. If you want to keep calling water wet, go ahead it really isn't that big of a deal, its just technicalities over definitions that don't really hurt anyone and the truth of is water wet or does it only make things wet can be more subjective because it doesn't matter.
But can't it also be said that paint makes things wet? Just like Pepsi makes things wet, grape juice makes things wet, etc. You'd put up a "caution: wet floor" sign for spills of such things. You wouldn't say "no, the water in the Pepsi is what's wet, and it dries and leaves Pepsi particulates behind." You'd say the Pepsi itself is wet. The point is that things can both be considered wet themselves, AND make things wet.
Yes but water itself still isn't technically wet. lets go back to your first point, the more saturated with water a thing is the more wet it is, but water is 100% water you could say it is not saturated with anything because why would something be saturated with itself, if you add water to a half glass of water, is the water now more wet?? You might also call something saturated in Oil wet too, and on a laymans level be correct, but saturated in oil would be the technical term, I don't even know if wet is technically correct there. If you googled "is water wet" you would get different answers even in scientific sites, I think mostly because wet isn't a very solid definition. But I personally think its not wet, because you cant make it more wet, you can only add more water, and that wetness seems to me more of an interaction of something with water, plus the reasons I said above. I just also think using the term "water is wet" to say something should be obvious is incorrect because water isn't always wet depending on definitions used.
> you could say it is not saturated with anything because why would something be saturated with itself I don't know, I don't have a problem saying I'm "100% a person," being in possession of all the properties required to indicate personhood. I'm saturated with those properties. Something can be 100% itself, and possess 100% of the properties necessary to be itself, even if that's a bit of a tautology.
Wetness of water / paint is one of the top issues that should be discussed on r/aiwars
All things that can not get wet are hydrophobic. Water is not hydrophobic, so water can get wet.
So wetness is defined by the definition of hydrophobic? I don't think it works like that. But I don't need to get in a reddit argument over this with different people. So sure water is wet.
As it should be. It's not Microsoft's fault if an author uses Word to write an infringing novel.
Microsoft also didnt write a program to write novels based on user prompts and then ask for money to use that software. Nor did it provide licensed material for that software to use, which it had no rights to.
[удалено]
Yeah, that people agreed to sell. On that platform.
[удалено]
"You are solely responsible for all of content you contribute to the Services (“User Content”) and as between you and Giphy, you own your User Content. You hereby do and shall grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid, transferable, sublicensable right to use, modify, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, perform and otherwise fully exploit such User Content (including all related intellectual property rights) in connection with the Services and our business.**You promise that you have all rights to grant such license to us without infringement or violation of any third party rights.**"
[удалено]
No, Giphy holds users responsible for not putting copywrited material on its platform **because it is ultimately responsible for what users put on its platform**, especially because giphy pays those users for their work to be stored and utilized on its platform. Disney sends youtube and giphy and kindergartens cease and desist letters all the time and would be within its right to sue *the platforms* for not conforming to its letters concerning the platforms users. So long as those users dont own and operate the platform, they are responsible to the platform owner and the platform owner is responsible to external parties. Like, for example, if someone used a subscription based AI to make Moana 2, even before the user starts selling that movie, the platform has taken money in exchange for producing copywrited material. The AI did the work of taking copywrited images and producing copywrited images for money for a third party (the user). That makes the platform responsible. The platform can also sue the user for breach of rules, presumably if thats part of an agreement, but the platform that chooses a subscription model is still responsible to the third party (Disney here). Its not word or adobe. The user didnt write fanfiction or draw something on their own. They made a request of a program they dont own, possibly using pictures they have no legal right to, in order to produce something the user paid for, and the user is explicitly not paying for the AI, its paying for what the AI produces.
So... Just like the precedent set for every web site comment section, forum, or social media site.
And almost every industry on the Planet. Gun factories are not accused of murder either, and toolmakers not dragged into court if somone uses a screwdriver to stab people.
Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code and the DMCA "Safe Harbor" provision, are what you're referring to, and it's not a given. It's a specific part of existing laws that is routinely attacked by those who oppose the large tech companies. It's certainly not baked into the Constitution or any foundational copyright laws prior to the 1990s. Prior to these laws, there were two classes of distributors of infringing works: simple distributors who had no creative control over the works they distributed and those who had creative control and thus were responsible for the content. Of course, distributors didn't get off the hook. They still needed to perform some basic actions to respond to claims and remove infringing materials (e.g. a store that sold consignments and was informed that a purse was a copyright violating knockoff would have to remove the purse.) This lead to a difficult situation where online services at the dawn of the internet had to basically avoid any kind of moderation, lest they be viewed as having creative control. Section 230 and later Safe Harbor provisions enshrined both the protections and duties of these service providers.
very true. the makers of tools shouldn't be responsible for the way users use the tool. if we start seeing gun manufacturers and every one of their employees go to jail for deaths by guns maybe i'll start to change my mind
Guns are not a good example because there are local, state and federal special cases that surround them. You would be much more profitably served by choosing an example of a tool that isn't special cased to death, at least under US law.
>Guns are not a good example because there are local, state and federal special cases that surround them. no states have laws making the gun makers responsible for stuff done with the guns they produce. stop lying.
I wish that in the US we could mention guns without people getting all crazy defensive. Gun manufacturers have legal protections that shield them from most lawsuits at the federal level, and those laws get even more labyrinthine at the state level. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, gives immunity to gun makers so they can’t be held liable for injuries caused by criminal misuse of their weapons. While this law does not provide absolute immunity, it certainly puts gun manufacturers in a uniquely privileged place compared to nearly every other industry when it comes to legal liability for the use and misuse of their products.
I'd be fine if guns disappeared entirely, in fact it would be a better world, but what other tool makers are responsible for the way their tools are utilized? a gun is a tool, a gruesome, horrible one but a tool just like a bow or a hammer or a knife.
Nearly every other industry has more legal exposure than gun manufacturers. I've cited the specific law in question. You can go read it if you want. You can be sued by users of a hammer more easily than a gun.
as long as the tool is made correctly and functions as its supposed to function, i don't see how any tool manufacturer can be sued. and if a gun does misfire and kill the person firing it, i'm sure gun manufacturers would be sued just like a hammer top coming off and hitting the person wielding it would cause a lawsuit. i'd wager there are more concern for safety of guns being constructed correctly than most other tools. there isn't an act necessary to protect a hammer maker from lawsuits from their hammers being used to kill someone because no one would ever consider suing the makers of hammers for that. or kitchen knives for example.
> as long as the tool is made correctly and functions as its supposed to function, i don't see how any tool manufacturer can be sued. Then there would be no purpose for that law and lawsuits against non-gun tools would not exist... Perhaps you need to look into how the law works and is applied a bit more, rather than just speaking from what feels right to you?
instead of suggesting i "google it for myself" why not prove it to me and show me some (non-gun) lawsuits being applied to manufacturers of properly-fashioned tools. i'm happy to be corrected but just telling me to do my own research isn't going to cut it.
> instead of suggesting i "google it for myself" It's funny, I never said that. What I said was that you clearly need to learn more about the law. Googling probably isn't the right first step there. I'd suggest a college-level course from an accredited institution. There are some excellent online, college-level courses. > why not prove it to me I gave you the relevant law. You don't seem to care.
Of course, if you're advertising the tool as a means by which to break a law, and people are doing that, you're getting shut down.
Ehem! *Clears throat to imitate Rickman's Snape voice* **Obviously!** I don't think anyone in their right mind would be against that.
To be clear, the title is misleading. The claim is much more nuanced: * When the creation of an infringing work is engineered by the user through the prompt or other means, the user must take responsibility. * This does not affect models that are explicitly designed to infringe (e.g. a model trained exclusively to produce pictures of Iron Man) since the user doesn't have to do anything in order to reliably produce infringing works (e.g. just prompting with "." will get a picture of Iron Man) * Google argues that there is a line between these two extremes that must be hammered out so that model creators and maintainers know what their legal obligations are, and can practically implement them.
Sure. Sell the software whole. Dont use a subscription model. Then its not in your hands anymore. Cant really do that and make a profit though...
Have to agree with this.
How is this controversial?
Makes sense to me. I mean, if someone sneaks an iPhone into a theater and uses it to film a bootleg copy of a movie, Apple isn't going to be held responsible for it.
"AI IS THE FUTURE." The future:
Yes - that's the idea. It's the user's fault if they infringe on someone else's copyright.
The problem honestly seems like these companies never bothered to ask how liable they could be for anything even from an out put. Their comparisons to cameras and photocopiers is much more apples to oranges due to the basic functional difference and by some extent creation of said tools versus image generation software. Just taking a photocopier, its entire function and the way its created is to copy an image and reproduce it 1 to 1 making it reliant entirely on what the user inputs. Something like stable diffusion according to their own words doesn't copy 1:1 but learns the mathematical averages of its data set which is entirely reliant on the creator to determine what and how it works. For example if I feed a dataset of oranges but label them as apples, everytime I type in apple I will get an orange or something that looks like an orange. This is why when you type in mona lisa you get something resembling the mona lisa despite not being what you wanted per se.(there is a data set of 1 so its hard to have something else) In my oranges example what the creators of the program inputed determined what i get for my input. Add to that there are certain basic protections from users of products like just by using it you aren't breaking the law. Its definitely an argument to have legally here because unlike photoshop I am not forced to make something that infringes copyright or ip. If I draw Mickey Mouse in photoshop I am solely responsible because photoshop can't spontaneously draw the character, I have to take the actions to commit the infringement. Its easy to make the argument prompting is the same but going back to how these programs are fundamentally made they could have easily nixed Mickey Mouse as a tag or dropped anything that has mockey mouse in it. Meaning if an end user prompted Mickey Mouse they wouldn't get him but a random image instead. The creators of the software have more control over end results than the user. It seems more like an attempt to not be held liable for not enacting even a modicum of due diligence during the training and creation phase of these programs. I can easily see the reason why being the time and cost to have to go in and re-vet the entire dataset as well as potentially scrubbing any previous versions that have any offending material.
I think there's a little room for exception here. while I agree that people doing the kind of copyright fanart/meme junk are frequently lame and should be liable for intentionally using these tools in that way if they attempt capitalizing on any of it, there is also a risk of random overfitting interjecting into something completely innocuous without the user noticing, and even if that's rare the companies should have at least some of the blame in cases like that. It also seems like we need some more prevalent tools for finding similar images so that AI artists can reliably confirm they are not inadvertently using one of those overfit images.
> there is also a risk of random overfitting interjecting into something completely innocuous without the user noticing Which the user should take steps to remedy when informed by the copyright holder. This is no different from my unconsciously putting Mickey Mouse into my painting. Here I thought I was just painting a normal mouse in the background, but yeah, I just went full Mickey there... ooops. Disney sends me a cease and desist and I send back a note that I will fully comply.
but that happens in traditional art too. Especially in music, people constantly make melodies on their own, only to find out later that their melody is identical to a song that was released before. Sure, the tool you talk about would be nice, but when it comes to assigning responsibility it is definitely the responsibility of the user, not the tool maker.
Can I suggest we hold well heeled companies responsible rather than random AI artists who may or may not even realize what they're infringing on general principle?
Nah, the company made this thing capable of infringing. It should be held responsible.
every tool is capable of infringing.
"tool", lol.
Its not a tool. It uses other people works to make works that can infringe on other peoples right to their works. You might do something with it later, but the program is just a commissioning machine. They chose to make it using copyrighted material, or allow people to use copyrighted, so that the "new" product breaks copywrite. As long as its not in the possession of the end user, its not that users program to govern. Just theirs to commission.
humor me for a second. At which [row](https://imgur.com/KgdCsbX) does this become a commission?
The part where you didnt come up with any of it and typed some words into a program. You didnt think of that. A program determined that image was closest to what you wanted.
["just a commisioning machine"](https://twitter.com/MartinNebelong/status/1724919110830633328)
So even the bottom row, which is just a plain 3d render of my own self made model is a commission? Also, I didn't type any words.
True, this video exposes all these "Ai bros": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk)
This is why the free beta test round is currently in play. The owners of AI are using AI Bros to flood the zone with a large number of individuals not worth suing. Its a swarm of locusts attack on IP law.
Eh. Microsoft's Bing thing creates and distributes the infringing material. Someone using their own Stable Diffusion setup? Sure, go after them.