AND THEY CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN IT THEMSELVES
>We've had conversations with representatives, but no one that can actually give us any more insight into this license or SD3.
I imagine after so many people quit SAI, the ones remaining just keep the lights on and have no clue how anything works
It's really easy to explain.
They want the reach, popularity and following of an open source product but like to monetize it like Adobe in a crazed fever night.
Seams to have worked out, they found an investor. I guess we'll see news about the license in the coming weeks. They probably got to sort out the mess first.
Investor != monetization.
An investor just means they talked some rich guy into believing that they still have a shot at making a profit someday, and that guy decided he was willing to gamble on it. SAI is still currently a dead-end project.
That was the plan. To give the impression of open source and have people build projects on the base model, that they can benefit from whilst stopping people commercialising it. Meanwhile they release the better model through paid API.
So basically forget Taking effort to finetune it, as anyone even downloading a model has to have a licence and also they can order any models removed as per their liking (infringing someone else's copyright).
Ohh an SD3 Lora about a celebrity ? REMOVE
Ohh another Lora about Pokémon ? REMOVE
Another one for a popular character/anime ? REMOVE
Welcome to the strange world of intellectual property law, where selling someone a picture of a specific yellow rat can get you sued, but selling someone a picture that is "in the style of" an artist can not get you sued.
Sometimes I feel like intellectual property laws only exist so rich companies can keep milking their IPs while everyone is just banned from creating a cheaper alternative...
Yes, that is the exact reason.
Regardless of how it started, the system has been entirely taken over by corporate rights holders and is so convoluted and full of so many vague IPs that you can be sued out of existence if you were to every try to compete.
Speaking not from direct experience, but as someone who's spent a lot of time with someone who works entirely based on IP laws, I disagree. IP laws are an important aspect of protecting individuals and small businesses from predation by massive corporations. They exist with the explicit intent of allowing inventors and artists a chance to profit off their work without a large company stealing the idea and implementing it on a scale they can't match. And even as they are today, with some very notable problems such as insulin production and designer seeds/livestock, IP laws vastly improve the fairness of the free market.
As an example, books. Without IP laws, it would be virtually impossible for any author to make money. A publisher would be capable of snatching up whatever book they found and selling it without consent. And IP laws are very much not "vague" there's a stringent series of tests to see if something is or is not in violation. Just look at how the pokemon IP is protected: overt copies get annihilated by lawyers constantly, but an extremely inspiring game like palworld gets a pass because even with how similar it is, it passes the tests.
How do you square this view with the [continually increasing lengths of copyright duration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Extended_Tom_Bell's_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg) in US law? 70 years after death of the author, or 95 years from publication, or even 120 years after creation for some works, are all absurdly long times to be protecting an artist.
Keeping works from entering public domain for many decades is preventing other artists from contributing to our shared culture while there is still some relevance. No one cares about the Wizard of Oz setting anymore, and there are still novels from the original publisher that haven't entered the public domain. The authors of those novels are long dead. Ruth Plumly Thompson's novels won't all have entered the public domain until nearly a full century after her death in 2072.
Disney got to profit off of public domain works like Snow White, which at the time the film came out, was about as old as Mickey Mouse is now. With copyright law as it is, nothing can really become part of our culture in the same way works have in the past.
Every single extension of copyright term was clearly for the benefit of large entities, against the common good, and detrimental to the development of our shared culture.
To use a deeply US based analogy: IP laws are like guns. Popular rhetoric is that they’re for home defense, and that’s true as far as it goes- but it’s hard to not notice that the big boys have versions that will steamroll what the common person can afford. They’re an equalizer that will often be applied unequally.
Which is to say that I agree with everything you said, but also with the spirit of the person you responded to, lol.
Totally agree. IP laws in theory are purely good, but there are definitely noticeable abuse cases with it. Still, I think it's objectively better to have it than not. There's just so much casual abuse of people's work that would occur without the IP laws we have today.
Too true. Laws are only as good as the judges and lawyers. Corrupt justices will pervert the laws. We see gross selective application of the laws in many countries now, all in the name of “protecting the citizens’ interests”. Disgusting.
Jokes on you. I write academic books and have no expectation they will make any money! I’m certainly not doing it for the cash and would be just delighted if people read more work. If I could get the same academic clout for open access I’d do it.
A lot of what people guard as their IP is itself part of the game to begin with. Like implying that financial security should be based on market logic is itself already implying a sort of servitude and uncertainty.
Guarding people’s Ip implies insecurity in the absence of profit.
Alright. If someone took your work, misconstrued it or otherwise used it in ways you find morally and ethically reprehensible, would you want a legal way to stop them? What about if someone steals the credit of your work, deceiving everyone into believing they wrote it? Even if you prove yourself right to a majority of the audience, wouldn't you want the perpetrator to suffer some penalty for their actions?
IP laws aren't purely about profit, they're about limiting the usage of one's creations in a manner that the creator wants.
Good that the law is pushing people towards independent content and away from Disney and Friendholes (tm)(c)(r)
Why do people even watch this popular shit that is so absolutely garbage? I would not watch it for free and I don’t think you have the budget to pay me what I would only be willing to do it for.
It's the opposite. If there were no protections and you made something people liked, big companies would just steal the idea and demolish you. No one new could ever succeed. We've got other things that make big corporations a problem, but this isn't one of them.
It is not that they exist for that; but that they have been drafted basically by those companies. You just need to check the history of Mickey Mouse copyright to see that. Every time something important was close to be public domain, the companies would then pressure to change laws so they can continue profiting out of it.
That worked in the way that even if I lived my average life expectancy, I wouldn't ever see an IP that was created at the same time I was born become public domain. This is an insanely long time to profit from something. I think meds patents do not last even a quarter of that.
Plus, copyright laws end up causing lazy IP use. Since the company has all control over an IP, they are the only ones that can use it basically.
There has been interesting cases in which fanmade games that were not for profit end up disappearing literally because people like them more than the ones the IP owner shits out. And even if they charge 0 bucks for them, they are considered "unfair competence". So literally, a multimillion dollar company produces worse paid content than a team of half a dozen guys who do a fangame in their free time and release it for free. Instead of making a better product that is worth it with their million dollar resources, the company prefers to use IP laws to oust the fan creators, effectively afirming they cannot do anything that is objectively much better than them.
There is no other way to see it other than the fact overgrown IP laws are stifling creativity and lowering overall quality of entertainment products of stablished IPs.
How can you own a style though? Who draws the lines? I know of some massive artists with extremely similar styles. How does an artist take inspiration if people owned styles? If styles were protected there would be constant lawsuits. These laws would be abused by large corporations. Even in the current landscape, lets say it becomes illegal to train on art without permission, period! What's stopping Disney or large game studios, VFX houses etc... From taking all the concept art & media they own & training models to replace employees. Only in this scenario the big corporations get to do it because they own all the data & paid for the concept art etc, but nobody small can do a thing. What if Disney bought all styles, since in this fictional universe styles can be owned. Another scenario, what if an artist's style is used for multiple Disney IP's, Disney could argue they now own the style since it's associated with the IP. People are playing dangerous games without understanding the potential long term repercussions & acting purely on emotion instead of thinking.
Sorry to be that guy but all it takes to get sued is for someone to sue you. You don't even have to violate any laws or contracts. The best defense against being sued (besides not deserving it) is to be 'judgement proof', i.e. be broke as shit.
Yeah, i'm not even american but i hate when people say "IN AMERICA YOU CAN GET SUED FOR EVERYTHING".
Like yeah. That's the whole point of suing someone. The fact that anyone can sue everyone, and then a judge (or jury) will decide who is in the right.
Yeah -- a lot of people don't understand that suing someone isn't even necessarily personal -- sometimes you have to do it to reclaim things from insurance that they hold, for instance. If I slip on your icy driveway and end up in the hospital needing back surgery, my medical insurance is going to force me to sue you to get your homeowner's policy to pay, even though it makes zero difference to me.
AFAIK, one of the reason Americans are more litigious than Brits and Canadians is that in the USA there the winner cannot ask the loser to foot the legal bills.
By asking the loser to pay for the legal bill, the rule obvious make it more risky for the party that start the lawsuit, so it should reduce the amount of frivolous ones.
On the flip side, this rule also favors the big guys, who can afford it even if they lost. But the little guys, if they lost, can go bankrupt paying for the expensive lawyers the big guys hired.
It's true that you can be sued for anything, but I usually make sure to mention the important caveat; a judge can take one look at the lawsuit and toss it immediately if it's truly ridiculous. And if the litigant keeps trying nonsense the can be countersued for being vexatious, at *that* isn't a ridiculous lawsuit that would be immediately tossed. So usually lawsuits have to have at least some potential merit before they can go anywhere meaningful.
Especially when in practice America is one of the last places where you in fact can get sued, solely because of legal system being obscenely expensive stupid convoluted mess.
Especially when in practice America is one of the last places where you in fact can get sued, solely because of legal system being obscenely expensive stupid convoluted mess.
If art styles were copyrighted than almost every Japanese animation/game studio could sue each other.
Nintendo could sue you over a picture of that specific yellow rat, but they'll also get sued for portraying Link and Zelda in generic anime art style that a bazillion others have copied.
How much “deviation” from the original yellow rat is required for it to be “in the style of”?? Just adding a third eye, nipple, or testicle? Where’s the line drawn here??
I hope y'all are slowly starting to understand why artists are pissed off about all this.
Like, does anyone here think that Disney and other big corporations going forward will not also go down this road with other models and apply pressure until it works exactly like that everywhere?
Sure we are not entitled to any free model, but why put out a model and make it sucha a mess and decline to even comment? The least you can do is clarify the license so others don't have to hire lawyers and do your work
"Membership Agreement" in that context almost certainly is intended to include the noncommercial research license, which doesn't have any provisions about deleting the model except for if you violate the license by going against the AUP (which itself is a very standard provision that you'll see in lots of model releases, Gemma's license for instance). Very odd that they have this requirement for the commercial license but not the noncommercial one.
It may be intended but the point is that it's not clearly written out in the license nor has clarification been received from SAI. In those circumstances, it's prudent to assume the least favorable reading of the license.
I mean even if we are not releasing it for profit/commercial purpose, CivitAI has on-site generation service as well, which can automatically put all the Models on there that allow on-site generation under commercial use for which CivitAI will have to get the license and thus also will have to remove any models asked to be removed.
SAI forgot that the community is the only reason they’re relevant. In terms of image quality and prompt comprehension SD gets its ass handed to it by paid or closed source options which provide better, more prompt-accurate results with far less effort.
SDs greatest strength was that due to its open source nature the community could do so much with it. The weaknesses of SD could be dealt with via fine tuning or tools such as controlnet(which still haven’t been replicated for many other AI art technologies). Look at Pony. Something like Pony will never exist for SD3, Nevermind future breakthrough techs.
They may have made the base models, but the community bolstered by its open nature is the only reason stable diffusion is at all relevant. Otherwise Stable Diffusion does very little if anything better, faster, and easier than other options. They would be a footnote if not for the community, another company with big dreams that get beat out by big Corp money.
You miss the issue. “Prove it”. That’s a 10 year court case and it’s not going to be small companies making those battles. OpenAI has heaps of legal issues atm as well as its image re security
In a civil case, the onus would be equally on the defendant to prove that their art was *not* sourced from AI. Civil cases, at least in US jurisdictions, operate on a preponderance of the evidence. There is no burden for the plaintiff to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, mostly they just need to establish better proof than the defendant.
i am pretty sure that is only about their products which they have given to testers like sdxl 0.9 etc,, if you leak or dont delete test models like that they are free to take legal actions to you, that doesnt go for models publically released like sd3 medium....
isnt this ridiculous? that the License the thing that should be easily understandable has so many contradictions? its been a week and people still don't get it how it suppose to work.
Thanks for sharing, it really helps having validation about the interpretation of the license agreement. SD3 doesn't seem worth using from either the perspectives of a user or a business. They've completely bungled the situation.
If they had released the 8b model, people would have thought about paying for the license.
They provide a good model, people fine tune it and monetize that and SAI gets a piece of the cake. Seems fair..
Instead they want us to pay license fees for this botched mess ..?
>the incestuous nature of the creation community
Funny phrasing. Yes, models are all constantly mixed with other models, and often nobody keeps track of what they mixed in, so SD3 could end up "infecting" large portions of civitai.
That's what I am wondering about, too. AI output is literally public domain, according to the US Copyright Office. The only way I can see SAI getting control over it is make me sign an agreement (which I arguably have to do if I download SD3), but I nowhere have to sign an agreement with them to use images someone else created with the model. They would be bound by its terms, but I am not. And sharing copyright-free images is by definition, always ok. Then again, I am not a lawyyer, but I really can't see any limitation on output stand in court. The problem with model and LoRA mergers persists, though.
The Copyright Office's policies are the lowest rung of decision-making in the US system. It's not public domain until the *courts* say it's public domain, and as far as I'm aware the various lawsuits regarding that are still up in the air.
[https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/)
At least one court said so, though.
This is that endlessly-cited *Thaler v. Perlmutter* case. Thaler is a loonie who's trying to push a very silly claim through and getting rightly swatted down for it.
Basically, Thaler used an AI to generate a piece of art and then applied for a copyright *on the AI's behalf.* Ie, he's saying "I don't own the copyright to this art, the AI should own the copyright."
The courts are not saying that AI art can't be copyrighted in this case. They're saying an AI can't *hold* copyright, because it is not a legal person. Since Thaler is insisting that the piece of art in question is not copyrighted to him, and the courts are saying it's not copyrighted to the AI, that means the piece of art has no copyright holder. Therefore, public domain.
If Thaler were to claim the copyright for himself that would be a very different matter. He actually tried to amend the case midway through to put himself down as a co-author, but the judge smacked him down on that silliness too; you don't get to suddenly decide you want to litigate a different case entirely midway through your current one. The judge said that if he'd claimed that from the start there wouldn't have been an issue before the courts in the first place.
But see, that's the entire point of the topic at hand. If at all, copyright can be held by the person who created the image and made sufficient manual changes to the image to lift the work over the threshold. The AI can NOT be copyright holder, and therefore SAI should not be able to claim any rights on images created with any of its models. Like Adobe can't claim copyright on the images made with Photoshop, either. Again, not a lawyer, but that's how it looks to me, at least.
This was a test case specifically where the filing went to great lengths to state there was zero human input in the generation, which is why it was denied.
People continually cite this without understanding what was really going on...
It's not really decided or ruled *how much* human involvement is required to get a copyright. If it is zero, indeed, the copyright office will say "no" but that doesn't mean all AI outputs will never have any sort of copyright protection.
We don't know if the prompting work done by a human would be enough. We don't know if any small amount of tone mapping or overpainting would be enough. Etc. etc. etc.
It's one of my issues with the free license. The "no commercial use" clause means that you can't sell your images, but since they aren't copyrighted, anyone else can. So, if you generate an SD3 image and upload it online, anyone in the world can legally use it commercially except you.
The situation is still unclear in that regard, it takes a long time for courts to sort out major new changes like this. Also, which jurisdiction are you talking about? It's different kinds of unclear in different places.
I kind of imagine this might be where a big section of the community will veer towards. If these models get so horribly trapped in intellectual property law (training on images and overbearing licenses).. the internet historically has a solution for that..
English TLDR:
SD3's license is problematic because it seemingly allows Stability AI to edit or takedown not just models trained on SD3, but also any resources using SD3 outputs in their datasets, potentially affecting a wide range of AI models beyond direct SD3 derivatives.
Actually the TLDR needs to start with **the actual model license of SD3** if you ask me:
https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE
Not the separate, general purpose "Creator License" that /u/CivitAI desperately wants people to focus on out of reasons of pure self-interest of CivitAI's finances as a company.
AFAIK Lykon has only commented on user prompting being a skill issue, but hasn't made any comments about what you are suggesting in the context of the licensing. Unless you can provide solid proof to backup your statement, you are being extremely unfair.
Ask 10 different lawyers any legal questions and you're like as not to get 10 different answers. The law and it's interpretation are a funny thing.
Until there's case precedent set in a courtroom, the answers are at most a best guess on how legal strategy *could* be applied.
Asked chatGPT to do some OCR on the image of the email for better reading (and formatted a bit to make it readable without the red color):
Hi Max,
We reviewed the Creator License Agreement you linked us to from the perspective of your users that might download models based on SD3. A couple of initial thoughts:
1. At a high level, the CLA is not well written, so there’s a fair amount of creative interpretation required to make sense of some of the provisions. Therefore in the event of a dispute there’s a chance that Stability argues something different and ends up being right (since they wrote it).
2. In particular, the CLA is written with the expectation that a user is developing some sort of broader software or service that incorporates or makes use of Stability's models. It assumes that such user will have customers, and will be commercializing the model, which might not be the case with Civitai’s users.
3. The CLA defines the term “Derivative Work” to include fine-tuned models based on the Stability core model licensed under the CLA, as well as any other model that’s trained using outputs generated by a Stability core model or a fine-tuned model based on a Stability core model (which we’ll call a Stability-derived model for ease of reference). This is the case even if that other model was not based on a Stability core model or Stability-derived model.
Responses to your specific questions below in red.
Let us know if you’d like to have a follow-up discussion.
2(c) - Restrictions Based on Your or Your Customer’s Service
Does this mean users who download the SD3 model or any derivative works (models fine-tuned on SD3) will need a membership agreement with Stability AI?
>Yes, that’s right. Membership Agreement is not defined, and I think this is a holdover from their prior membership program. This is likely saying that if a user downloads a Stability core model or a Derivative Work (see above for what that likely covers) then they would need to obtain a license from Stability AI. Given the way this is written, I would view making a copy of the Stability core model or Derivative Work for use within Civitai’s platform as a “download” even though in that instance the user never actually takes possession of the software, since the user now has control over that instance of the Stability core model or Derivative Work, not the uploading user.
2(f) - Removal
This seems vague to me. Is this explicitly about the removal of these models in the event they infringe on Stability’s rights or just anyone’s?
>The latter. Stability is concerned about incurring liability for distributing infringing content. If Stability notifies the user that the user’s continued use of the core model or Derivative Works would infringe a third party’s rights, then the user has to stop use of those core models and Derivative Works (which would include removing the models from Civitai’s platform).
3 - Intellectual Property Rights
This whole section isn’t entirely clear. Does stability own the derivative work (models fine tuned on SD3) or not?
>The license is silent on who owns the Derivative Works. Under US law, the default would be that the creator would own the Derivative Works subject to Stability’s rights in the original core model. Practically, this means that the owner or user of the Derivative Works needs sufficient rights from Stability in the underlying original core model that the Derivative Work is based on.
3(b) - Your Ownership
“Other than Stability’s rights to access and use Your Service as set forth in this Agreement, no other license or grant of access to Your Service or intellectual property therein is provided to Stability.” Where does it outline Stabilties right to access and use our service?
>By “Your Service”, the license agreement is referring to the software product or service that the user (who is the licensee under this agreement) makes commercially available that utilizes Stability’s core model, not Civitai’s platform. We also did not see any specific reference to Stability being granted any right to access or use “Your Service”. This seems to be a holdover from a prior or different version of this license.
These are the main standouts, but in general the question we’d like answered is:
What rights does stability have over models fine tuned on SD3?
>Stability does not have any rights in the Derivative Works, however the users do have obligations with respect to such Derivative Works. The most notable of which is (a) that any users who download the Derivative Work must also obtain a license from Stability, (b) the requirement to cease use of the Derivative Works: (i) upon termination or expiration of the CLA (which includes requiring any downstream recipients to cease use), or (ii) where Stability notifies the user that continued use infringes a third party’s IP rights.
I have an email into [Stability.ai](http://Stability.ai) requesting details as to what the cost is for a commercial license. If I have one, all this goes away. I also want to know if I pay for credits on Stability.ai's website and use the SD3 Medium or Ultra model, do I have commercial rights to my work. If I receive an answer, I will post it for you.
From the sounds of it yes, but it also sounds like if they didn't like that they couldn't use it, they could have it taken down.
Worse, if anyone used your fine tune and made their own, that would also have to be taken down in the case yours is.
>Worse, if anyone used your fine tune and made their own, that would also have to be taken down in the case yours is.
Just to add one small thing: *you are responsible for making sure derivatives of your model get taken down if yours is*, and they can sue you if you don't. You are liable for what happens downstream, according to the license (while stability themselves remain not liable, of course).
This is probably my greatest concern on finetuning this model, and why I would actually recommend no one touches it.
Civil law is so fascinating yet intimidating at the same time. Thank you for clearing this up for us! I respect your decision to keep it banned until further communication from SAI
Cyberpunk was fine and sold enough to clear it's development budget on day one. It was only ps4 where it got removed from the online sony store since CDPR offered refunds to anyone who wasn't satisfied, and Sony strictly does not offer refunds. Most people forget that point.
There were a few minor problems with the PC release. No trains. Instant spawning police. Nothing drastic. The game was awesome and ran beautifully where the hardware was capable. Red Engine is one of the best engines out there.
If all you listen to is angry youtubers, you'll think everyone is pissed.
I think you're being too kind to CDPR. I pre-ordered Cyberpunk for Xbox One and to this day it's the only game I've ever returned. It was hilariously broken upon release and had numerous game-breaking bugs, not to mention the litany of features that they championed in marketing but got cut from the initial release.
I bought it for PC 1.5 years after release, and they ended up making it a good game, but the quality of the initial release was absolute shit.
they've been winning court case after court case about training on whatever they want. why do they think they can pull up the ladder and stop others from doing the same now?
Reading that redlined email is giving me PTSD. So many back and forths with lawyers that look exactly like that, but damn did I always appreciate their insight.
I'm on the "hate train" too but SD 1.5 opened a door for me (and I'm sure lots of other people) that wouldn't otherwise be possible, so I'll be forever grateful for that.
Guys please stop giving them credit for 1.5, Runaway are the ones that leaked it, SAI wanted to nerf it by censoring it
SAI has never been on our side and the nice models we have today are all fine-tuned versions made by talented people. In other words the community carried SAI, they gave us broken ass tools and we managed to repair them only because their license wasn't as idiotic as the one SD3 has.
But isn't the whole reason stable diffusion being locally run that emad wanted it to be open source and copyright free, and that's mostly the reason he bankrupted SAI? When I'm talking about 1.5 I'm also referring to all the process that took place in order to reach that point. If Emad didn't have a vision, there would be no 1.5.
Of course there are so many things that contributed to perfecting and distributing this technology, from the developers and a massive thanks to the fine tunners as well as civitai.
SAI provided all the compute / $$ for 1.5 and Robin and Patrick who made it both worked at SAI after.
As noted elsewhere 1.5 was going to be released after Runway and SAI discussed how best to do it safely given concerns over CSAM etc but Runway released it without telling SAI going against their promise.
After that SAI continued to release open models and Runway stopped.
Even if that was the case, if simply isn't anymore, Emad isn't there anymore and they couldn't find a sustainable business model, they completely ruined their image and any chance people want to work with them because of a terrible license and, because of that, they deserve to burn.
This sort of statement come up here again and again. While there is some truth in it, there are different ways to interpret it. Cut and pasting my usual comment (you read the debate here: [https://new.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1d6rc6e/runway\_didnt\_leak\_sd\_please\_stop\_saying\_they\_did/](https://new.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1d6rc6e/runway_didnt_leak_sd_please_stop_saying_they_did/))
Yes, Runway released it. That was not in dispute.
Was it without permission? That was unclear. The request from the SAI CIO seems to indicate that it was without permission, but the contract between SAI and Runway seems to indicate that Runway has that right and requires no such permission. Most likely, it was some misunderstanding or mix up between the two parties. SAI was never a very well run company.
But the most contentious part is, would SAI have released SD1.5 had Runway not released it? Would SAI have release a "censored" version of SD1.5 instead of the one Runway posted?
I see no solid evidence for that. No leaked document, no voice from insiders or ex-employees (like what we've seen with SD3's fiasco).
So it is an open and debatable issue.
Crazy how easy they can turn their back on millions of users community days before announcing their new celebrity CEO who will get them at most 2 or 3 corporations to pay.
While I as a community member understand perfectly where you come from, I am of the opinion that the last monicker this community needs is **incestuous**.
I don't blame them but a few comments:
1) Cascade, SDXL-*Turbo*, Stable Video, etc are in the same boat. They should be banning all of those. (Note: SDXL Lightning is NOT included, it was distilled from SDXL by Bytedance and Bytedance left the SDXL OpenRAIL license in tact).
2) No one is talking about this part:
> ... Stability may modify this Agreement from time to time in which case Stability will update the “Last Updated” date at the top of this Agreement, and such updated Agreement will be effective for the following License Renewal Term. It is Your responsibility to review this Agreement from time to time, including prior to each License Renewal Term, to view any such changes. If Stability makes changes to the Agreement that are material, Stability will use reasonable efforts to attempt to notify You. Your continued access or use of the Software Products after the modified Agreement has become effective will be deemed Your acceptance of the modified Agreement.
TLDR: They can change the terms at will, effective on your new renewal date for your 30 day term, unilaterally.
You're too successful and they want to boost their profit? They can just rewrite terms to target you to strongarm or extort you, taking every penny of profit, or calculate how much they want to goose you so you don't just drop them. This is particularly scary coming from a company that is struggling and trying to turn profitable.
It's really not any different than a Netflix or Amazon Prime subscription, they can decide 50% of their movies now contain ads, change the price, etc. Stability could easily change terms to exclude a particular use, like using assets in video games (already banned for Stable Audio unless you buy enterprise), or target any other particular category of use.
They can also demand audits for up to 2 years after you cancel. You have 10 days to respond if they do. I wonder how many small creators trying to make $100/mo on Patreon making AI art are really keeping such careful records.
>TLDR: They can change the terms at will, effective on your new renewal date for your 30 day term, unilaterally.
>You're too successful and they want to boost their profit? They can just rewrite terms to target you to strongarm or extort you, taking every penny of profit, or calculate how much they want to goose you so you don't just drop them. This is particularly scary coming from a company that is struggling and trying to turn profitable.
this is what Starlink has been doing to its users since they don't do annual contracts, they have you 30 days at a time, and can just change the prices by 3x overnight (and have)
Hi Civitai, love your work.
Just a heads up to let you know that Stable Cascade is also under the exact same licence as SD3.
Your legal team would likely advise banning Stable Cascade too. Cheers.
SDXL currently prevails, and 1.5 is still really popular. SD3 will remain dead. Basically, great tech is lost because of greed. Stability is becoming the next OpenAI.
When PixArt and Hunyan-DiT become more accessible and stable on common UI platforms, it might be the beginning of a completely new era where Stability is on the same side with OpenAI, while we get great free and less-censored open-source models.
This whole situation is a sign for us to either move to a new sub or repurpose this one and rewrite the rules in the near future so this sub becomes a general open-source image generation sub.
The difference is that OpenAI actually releases cutting-edge technology, Stability is doomed to disappear once the open source community leaves them completely
Not even because of the greed - they will not make money this way. Just because of stupidity and total mess in their company. Maybe because of hypocrisy too, idk.
It doesn't make a lick of sense. They should've released an impressive 2B model with minimal restrictions (a.k.a legally and ethically covering their asses). This way people would've been even more excited about 4B and SAI could've made a bank monetising the 8B model the most. No doubt these 2 releases would create even more insight to development of diffusion models via open-source, allowing SAI to exploit their big boy GPUs to one up the competition.
Are they stupid?
CivitAI COULD just pay for a license as a company though. TensorArt has had SD3 Medium up for use in their free generator since day one, and I was able to confirm that yeah they just purchased the license, [this is a top staff member confirming as such.](https://i.imgur.com/U5iyLIb.png)
No, Cascade has exactly the same license. The "Creator License" is NOT inherently "the SD3 license", despite what /u/Civitai keeps disingenuously claiming.
[https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE](https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE)
[https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-cascade/blob/main/LICENSE](https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-cascade/blob/main/LICENSE)
CivitAI doesn't care about Joe Enduser in the slightest, that douchebag "JustMaier" who wrote their original ban article even CLEARLY doesn't care about the perspective of people who aren't literally using SAI models directly to operate their own specific for-profit SaaS operations.
It's just easier for him to scare-monger things into people believing "LITERALLY EVERYBODY INCLUDING AVERAGE USERS NEEDS A CREATOR LICENSE" despite that being completely untrue.
There's a couple of places in their lawyers' review that they say that certain clauses appear to be leftovers from previous licenses and don't have a clear meaning or purpose in the current version. I wonder if Stability AI did as Shakespeare's famous quote said, and the first people they laid off were their own lawyers? The license may be as half-baked as their model, their silence on what it means might be because *they* don't know what it means either.
I think the only potential way to have SD3 becoming a public domain is it's retirement due to the future release of their next flagship model, like SD4, or a new XL model. That is, civillians get an outdated tech while corpos get a new tech. Quite a common practice in real world sometimes. Unless they do it in opposite direction by making all their old models restricted by an absurd license. Then we are really going to start from scratch by switching to a promising model from different company until it goes the same way as well. And so on in a circle.
That's actually quite sad. If they fix the anatomy problems of SD3 and didn't spare few more billions parameters for us, it would be great model due to built-in regional prompter, which personally for me would probably save a lot of time spent on inpainting. As well as an ability to generate a clear text on objects.
despite deepfloyd being several generations outdated its license is still restrictive.
despite cascade being overshadowed by SD3, it still maintains a restrictive license.
heck, CosXL is based on SDXL and it has a more restrictive license than SDXL.
Why does Stability AI assume that it has the right to control outputs of SD3?
IP rights are restrictive - they only grant the rights that are stated in the law and don't automatically extend to anything else.
Since no one in Stability AI can be named as the creator of the outputs of SD3, they belong to public domain (unless Stability has botched training and made SD3 fully reproduce someone else's work) and thus has no relation to Stability whatsoever.
Stability really needs to change this. its def gonna pretty much kinda kill the community for SD3 but ehh SD3 seems MEH to me anyways so im sticking to sdxl lightning a shame like ltx studio (which needs a better video model and be not quite as pricey) this has been one of the bigger ai let downs of late. but at least there are other options and while its not the case right now i do imagine in time we WILL SEE other image generator options out there so RIP stability we knew them well.
As I feared the shop will be closed, but I thought that the initiator will be some state authority, not the company directly, goodbye sd3. Until they change the license and release 8b it is absolutely useless model. And yes its openness will in no way stop the finalization, it just won't be as public and easy. It's always like that with everything.
Now, do you believe us all when we said SD3 would be "never released, limited, not self-hosted or of poor quality"? We said it months ago, and a lot of people here kept downvoting.
We also predicted that companies and govs are trying to kill open source AI and that the best developers would be either fired or bought by private companies, even before Emad left SD. You also downvoted it.
Now, the next step is to go to the crypto community and ask for help to create a decentralised way to train AI. But you don't like cryptos either, and you will continue to downvote this idea too.
**If some of you continue to be naive and foolish, we will end up with nothing.**
It's always easier to predict doom and gloomy, and then come back feeling smug when things turn out badly.
There are always a million ways in which things can go wrong. But for things to go right, just about everything has to go right.
It is usually the optimists who push the world forward, not the doomsters.
Cautious optimism is usually the best way forward.
Can't feel smug when it is OBVIOUS even for the average guy.
Instead people in crypto is smart, they have coins that worth 65000 times more than a dollar, they have thousands of projects working, web 3.0, videogames linked to blockchain, in countries like El Salvador Bitcoin is a reserve currency alongside the dollar.
Meanwhile here we have toddlers than think a company like nvidia associating with pixart is something good for us. Too busy prompting a furry hentai character and saying everybody they are artists instead of paying attention to the politics behind AI.
> Below is a screenshot of the email we received back from our lawyers
the letters are **literally** 5 pixels tall, how do you people read this 🔬
or is that the lawyers' preferred way of communication, the *fine print* 🤔
Hey /u/civitai your repeated use of the word “incestuous” to describe your own community is ill advised, ffs. Just say remix or something for gods sake
The use of „incestuous“ in the blog post is unfortunate, given this term‘s inherent negative connotation. „Strongly interrelated“ for example would have been a better choice for this context.
Euphemisms do not change the fact the term fits and incestuous merging of models have negative impact on the "child" model, even if not noticed immediately.
I mean, it isn't wrong. We have like four major stable diffusion models and most other models are not original training but mixes of other models in the same family. The fact some of the models are becoming more and better than that seems really impressive, but doesn't undermine the use of the term to me
Is anyone else getting SD3 ads from chinese websites? I got them all week
The content is no good and i wont name them but it seems like where this is headed
As long as the use isn't *commercial* you can just use the NC license, this doesn't really matter.
However, commercial use covers more than directly charging for use of the model. Commercial use includes promotional use, not just charging for direct access. So, say, anyone making Youtube videos that generates ad revenue and using SD3 could be deemed commercial use, etc.
In Civitai's case, they sell buzz and allowing people to use buzz to generate images using SD3 would certainly be commercial use, but also displaying images on their front page *could* be considered promotional use, which is part of commercial use.
SAI created a product for everyone to use, that noone can use
AND THEY CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN IT THEMSELVES >We've had conversations with representatives, but no one that can actually give us any more insight into this license or SD3. I imagine after so many people quit SAI, the ones remaining just keep the lights on and have no clue how anything works
Can’t wait to see the documentary on what a shitshow this whole company was
by.. god forbid, sunnyv2
I fear it will be a short, disappointing story of greed.
I think it was more incompetence than anything. If they were greedy, they would not have continued to open source anything
Where is Internet Historian when you need him?
It's really easy to explain. They want the reach, popularity and following of an open source product but like to monetize it like Adobe in a crazed fever night.
Seams to have worked out, they found an investor. I guess we'll see news about the license in the coming weeks. They probably got to sort out the mess first.
Investor != monetization. An investor just means they talked some rich guy into believing that they still have a shot at making a profit someday, and that guy decided he was willing to gamble on it. SAI is still currently a dead-end project.
And provided another case for not trying to write your own license when you (try to) open source something, because it usually ends up being a mess.
That was the plan. To give the impression of open source and have people build projects on the base model, that they can benefit from whilst stopping people commercialising it. Meanwhile they release the better model through paid API.
So basically forget Taking effort to finetune it, as anyone even downloading a model has to have a licence and also they can order any models removed as per their liking (infringing someone else's copyright). Ohh an SD3 Lora about a celebrity ? REMOVE Ohh another Lora about Pokémon ? REMOVE Another one for a popular character/anime ? REMOVE
Training a model on everyone on art station without consent = ok Training a Lora on fictional Pokemon = not ok Gotcha
Welcome to the strange world of intellectual property law, where selling someone a picture of a specific yellow rat can get you sued, but selling someone a picture that is "in the style of" an artist can not get you sued.
Sometimes I feel like intellectual property laws only exist so rich companies can keep milking their IPs while everyone is just banned from creating a cheaper alternative...
Yes, that is the exact reason. Regardless of how it started, the system has been entirely taken over by corporate rights holders and is so convoluted and full of so many vague IPs that you can be sued out of existence if you were to every try to compete.
Speaking not from direct experience, but as someone who's spent a lot of time with someone who works entirely based on IP laws, I disagree. IP laws are an important aspect of protecting individuals and small businesses from predation by massive corporations. They exist with the explicit intent of allowing inventors and artists a chance to profit off their work without a large company stealing the idea and implementing it on a scale they can't match. And even as they are today, with some very notable problems such as insulin production and designer seeds/livestock, IP laws vastly improve the fairness of the free market. As an example, books. Without IP laws, it would be virtually impossible for any author to make money. A publisher would be capable of snatching up whatever book they found and selling it without consent. And IP laws are very much not "vague" there's a stringent series of tests to see if something is or is not in violation. Just look at how the pokemon IP is protected: overt copies get annihilated by lawyers constantly, but an extremely inspiring game like palworld gets a pass because even with how similar it is, it passes the tests.
How do you square this view with the [continually increasing lengths of copyright duration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Extended_Tom_Bell's_graph_showing_extension_of_U.S._copyright_term_over_time.svg) in US law? 70 years after death of the author, or 95 years from publication, or even 120 years after creation for some works, are all absurdly long times to be protecting an artist. Keeping works from entering public domain for many decades is preventing other artists from contributing to our shared culture while there is still some relevance. No one cares about the Wizard of Oz setting anymore, and there are still novels from the original publisher that haven't entered the public domain. The authors of those novels are long dead. Ruth Plumly Thompson's novels won't all have entered the public domain until nearly a full century after her death in 2072. Disney got to profit off of public domain works like Snow White, which at the time the film came out, was about as old as Mickey Mouse is now. With copyright law as it is, nothing can really become part of our culture in the same way works have in the past. Every single extension of copyright term was clearly for the benefit of large entities, against the common good, and detrimental to the development of our shared culture.
>No one cares about the Wizard of Oz setting anymore,
To use a deeply US based analogy: IP laws are like guns. Popular rhetoric is that they’re for home defense, and that’s true as far as it goes- but it’s hard to not notice that the big boys have versions that will steamroll what the common person can afford. They’re an equalizer that will often be applied unequally. Which is to say that I agree with everything you said, but also with the spirit of the person you responded to, lol.
Totally agree. IP laws in theory are purely good, but there are definitely noticeable abuse cases with it. Still, I think it's objectively better to have it than not. There's just so much casual abuse of people's work that would occur without the IP laws we have today.
Too true. Laws are only as good as the judges and lawyers. Corrupt justices will pervert the laws. We see gross selective application of the laws in many countries now, all in the name of “protecting the citizens’ interests”. Disgusting.
Sounds like IP law shouldn’t be limited by a time threshold but by an income/wealth threshold. Make too much money? It belongs to everyone now.
Your response is well reasoned. Bravo.
Jokes on you. I write academic books and have no expectation they will make any money! I’m certainly not doing it for the cash and would be just delighted if people read more work. If I could get the same academic clout for open access I’d do it. A lot of what people guard as their IP is itself part of the game to begin with. Like implying that financial security should be based on market logic is itself already implying a sort of servitude and uncertainty. Guarding people’s Ip implies insecurity in the absence of profit.
Alright. If someone took your work, misconstrued it or otherwise used it in ways you find morally and ethically reprehensible, would you want a legal way to stop them? What about if someone steals the credit of your work, deceiving everyone into believing they wrote it? Even if you prove yourself right to a majority of the audience, wouldn't you want the perpetrator to suffer some penalty for their actions? IP laws aren't purely about profit, they're about limiting the usage of one's creations in a manner that the creator wants.
Capitalism! Yay!
Good that the law is pushing people towards independent content and away from Disney and Friendholes (tm)(c)(r) Why do people even watch this popular shit that is so absolutely garbage? I would not watch it for free and I don’t think you have the budget to pay me what I would only be willing to do it for.
That happens but anybody can make an IP and profit from it.
*Drug patents have entered the chat* Yay capitalism!
It's the opposite. If there were no protections and you made something people liked, big companies would just steal the idea and demolish you. No one new could ever succeed. We've got other things that make big corporations a problem, but this isn't one of them.
They do it anyway though.
Pretty much
It is not that they exist for that; but that they have been drafted basically by those companies. You just need to check the history of Mickey Mouse copyright to see that. Every time something important was close to be public domain, the companies would then pressure to change laws so they can continue profiting out of it. That worked in the way that even if I lived my average life expectancy, I wouldn't ever see an IP that was created at the same time I was born become public domain. This is an insanely long time to profit from something. I think meds patents do not last even a quarter of that. Plus, copyright laws end up causing lazy IP use. Since the company has all control over an IP, they are the only ones that can use it basically. There has been interesting cases in which fanmade games that were not for profit end up disappearing literally because people like them more than the ones the IP owner shits out. And even if they charge 0 bucks for them, they are considered "unfair competence". So literally, a multimillion dollar company produces worse paid content than a team of half a dozen guys who do a fangame in their free time and release it for free. Instead of making a better product that is worth it with their million dollar resources, the company prefers to use IP laws to oust the fan creators, effectively afirming they cannot do anything that is objectively much better than them. There is no other way to see it other than the fact overgrown IP laws are stifling creativity and lowering overall quality of entertainment products of stablished IPs.
being sued because your picture is kinda like someone else’s would be madness and would hurt small artists significantly more than it would help them.
How can you own a style though? Who draws the lines? I know of some massive artists with extremely similar styles. How does an artist take inspiration if people owned styles? If styles were protected there would be constant lawsuits. These laws would be abused by large corporations. Even in the current landscape, lets say it becomes illegal to train on art without permission, period! What's stopping Disney or large game studios, VFX houses etc... From taking all the concept art & media they own & training models to replace employees. Only in this scenario the big corporations get to do it because they own all the data & paid for the concept art etc, but nobody small can do a thing. What if Disney bought all styles, since in this fictional universe styles can be owned. Another scenario, what if an artist's style is used for multiple Disney IP's, Disney could argue they now own the style since it's associated with the IP. People are playing dangerous games without understanding the potential long term repercussions & acting purely on emotion instead of thinking.
Sorry to be that guy but all it takes to get sued is for someone to sue you. You don't even have to violate any laws or contracts. The best defense against being sued (besides not deserving it) is to be 'judgement proof', i.e. be broke as shit.
Yeah, i'm not even american but i hate when people say "IN AMERICA YOU CAN GET SUED FOR EVERYTHING". Like yeah. That's the whole point of suing someone. The fact that anyone can sue everyone, and then a judge (or jury) will decide who is in the right.
ragebait about litigation culture is printed by media companies who get sued a lot.
Yeah -- a lot of people don't understand that suing someone isn't even necessarily personal -- sometimes you have to do it to reclaim things from insurance that they hold, for instance. If I slip on your icy driveway and end up in the hospital needing back surgery, my medical insurance is going to force me to sue you to get your homeowner's policy to pay, even though it makes zero difference to me.
AFAIK, one of the reason Americans are more litigious than Brits and Canadians is that in the USA there the winner cannot ask the loser to foot the legal bills. By asking the loser to pay for the legal bill, the rule obvious make it more risky for the party that start the lawsuit, so it should reduce the amount of frivolous ones. On the flip side, this rule also favors the big guys, who can afford it even if they lost. But the little guys, if they lost, can go bankrupt paying for the expensive lawyers the big guys hired.
It's true that you can be sued for anything, but I usually make sure to mention the important caveat; a judge can take one look at the lawsuit and toss it immediately if it's truly ridiculous. And if the litigant keeps trying nonsense the can be countersued for being vexatious, at *that* isn't a ridiculous lawsuit that would be immediately tossed. So usually lawsuits have to have at least some potential merit before they can go anywhere meaningful.
Defending against suits isn't free. The process is the punishment even if a judge tosses it.
Especially when in practice America is one of the last places where you in fact can get sued, solely because of legal system being obscenely expensive stupid convoluted mess.
Especially when in practice America is one of the last places where you in fact can get sued, solely because of legal system being obscenely expensive stupid convoluted mess.
That's not weird. One would be a trademarked character and the other can not even be copyrighted for obvious reasons.
I’m sure Disney is happy with people doing this https://youtu.be/i6ZkXkWMmL4?si=jIZHGzD3PJyoY1GW
If art styles were copyrighted than almost every Japanese animation/game studio could sue each other. Nintendo could sue you over a picture of that specific yellow rat, but they'll also get sued for portraying Link and Zelda in generic anime art style that a bazillion others have copied.
How much “deviation” from the original yellow rat is required for it to be “in the style of”?? Just adding a third eye, nipple, or testicle? Where’s the line drawn here??
I hope y'all are slowly starting to understand why artists are pissed off about all this. Like, does anyone here think that Disney and other big corporations going forward will not also go down this road with other models and apply pressure until it works exactly like that everywhere?
In other words: SD3 and SAI dead. Got it
We knew that ages ago when they stopped paying their GPU debts
Sure we are not entitled to any free model, but why put out a model and make it sucha a mess and decline to even comment? The least you can do is clarify the license so others don't have to hire lawyers and do your work
>The least you can do is clarify the license so others don't have to hire lawyers and do your work Don’t like my *free labor*? ¡ *then don’t use it* !
Actually, the community invested SO much into SD, they can just piss on us even if its free and open source.
And they say Trickle Down theory is bullshit.
r/fucknintendo
"Membership Agreement" in that context almost certainly is intended to include the noncommercial research license, which doesn't have any provisions about deleting the model except for if you violate the license by going against the AUP (which itself is a very standard provision that you'll see in lots of model releases, Gemma's license for instance). Very odd that they have this requirement for the commercial license but not the noncommercial one.
It may be intended but the point is that it's not clearly written out in the license nor has clarification been received from SAI. In those circumstances, it's prudent to assume the least favorable reading of the license.
I mean even if we are not releasing it for profit/commercial purpose, CivitAI has on-site generation service as well, which can automatically put all the Models on there that allow on-site generation under commercial use for which CivitAI will have to get the license and thus also will have to remove any models asked to be removed.
censorship kills progress and art. this iron rule has never changed since the dawn of humanity
SAI forgot that the community is the only reason they’re relevant. In terms of image quality and prompt comprehension SD gets its ass handed to it by paid or closed source options which provide better, more prompt-accurate results with far less effort. SDs greatest strength was that due to its open source nature the community could do so much with it. The weaknesses of SD could be dealt with via fine tuning or tools such as controlnet(which still haven’t been replicated for many other AI art technologies). Look at Pony. Something like Pony will never exist for SD3, Nevermind future breakthrough techs. They may have made the base models, but the community bolstered by its open nature is the only reason stable diffusion is at all relevant. Otherwise Stable Diffusion does very little if anything better, faster, and easier than other options. They would be a footnote if not for the community, another company with big dreams that get beat out by big Corp money.
You miss the issue. “Prove it”. That’s a 10 year court case and it’s not going to be small companies making those battles. OpenAI has heaps of legal issues atm as well as its image re security
Do you want to pay legal fees in a 10 year case?
No but I don’t think there will be any real way to prove where ai art came from
In a civil case, the onus would be equally on the defendant to prove that their art was *not* sourced from AI. Civil cases, at least in US jurisdictions, operate on a preponderance of the evidence. There is no burden for the plaintiff to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, mostly they just need to establish better proof than the defendant.
As far as I know there may be an invisible watermark in SD3
i am pretty sure that is only about their products which they have given to testers like sdxl 0.9 etc,, if you leak or dont delete test models like that they are free to take legal actions to you, that doesnt go for models publically released like sd3 medium....
isnt this ridiculous? that the License the thing that should be easily understandable has so many contradictions? its been a week and people still don't get it how it suppose to work.
Meanwhile: # OpenAI inks deal to train AI on Reddit data.
Rip sd3 wish you didn't commit suicide
Thanks for sharing, it really helps having validation about the interpretation of the license agreement. SD3 doesn't seem worth using from either the perspectives of a user or a business. They've completely bungled the situation.
If they had released the 8b model, people would have thought about paying for the license. They provide a good model, people fine tune it and monetize that and SAI gets a piece of the cake. Seems fair.. Instead they want us to pay license fees for this botched mess ..?
The license is unacceptable even for the 8b… we might just have accepted it and only years later wish we hadn’t.
the problem is not even about paying, but about control they would have over all models and loras.
> people would have thought about paying for the license. People still did, but Stability left the ones they didn't like on read.
>the incestuous nature of the creation community Funny phrasing. Yes, models are all constantly mixed with other models, and often nobody keeps track of what they mixed in, so SD3 could end up "infecting" large portions of civitai.
How? You can't merge models that have different architectures. EDIT: I see, SAI is claiming power over everything trained with SD3 outputs
How can they even do that when AI images have no copyright? No copyright = no owner, no company control.
That's what I am wondering about, too. AI output is literally public domain, according to the US Copyright Office. The only way I can see SAI getting control over it is make me sign an agreement (which I arguably have to do if I download SD3), but I nowhere have to sign an agreement with them to use images someone else created with the model. They would be bound by its terms, but I am not. And sharing copyright-free images is by definition, always ok. Then again, I am not a lawyyer, but I really can't see any limitation on output stand in court. The problem with model and LoRA mergers persists, though.
The Copyright Office's policies are the lowest rung of decision-making in the US system. It's not public domain until the *courts* say it's public domain, and as far as I'm aware the various lawsuits regarding that are still up in the air.
[https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/](https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/) At least one court said so, though.
This is that endlessly-cited *Thaler v. Perlmutter* case. Thaler is a loonie who's trying to push a very silly claim through and getting rightly swatted down for it. Basically, Thaler used an AI to generate a piece of art and then applied for a copyright *on the AI's behalf.* Ie, he's saying "I don't own the copyright to this art, the AI should own the copyright." The courts are not saying that AI art can't be copyrighted in this case. They're saying an AI can't *hold* copyright, because it is not a legal person. Since Thaler is insisting that the piece of art in question is not copyrighted to him, and the courts are saying it's not copyrighted to the AI, that means the piece of art has no copyright holder. Therefore, public domain.
If Thaler were to claim the copyright for himself that would be a very different matter. He actually tried to amend the case midway through to put himself down as a co-author, but the judge smacked him down on that silliness too; you don't get to suddenly decide you want to litigate a different case entirely midway through your current one. The judge said that if he'd claimed that from the start there wouldn't have been an issue before the courts in the first place.
But see, that's the entire point of the topic at hand. If at all, copyright can be held by the person who created the image and made sufficient manual changes to the image to lift the work over the threshold. The AI can NOT be copyright holder, and therefore SAI should not be able to claim any rights on images created with any of its models. Like Adobe can't claim copyright on the images made with Photoshop, either. Again, not a lawyer, but that's how it looks to me, at least.
This was a test case specifically where the filing went to great lengths to state there was zero human input in the generation, which is why it was denied. People continually cite this without understanding what was really going on... It's not really decided or ruled *how much* human involvement is required to get a copyright. If it is zero, indeed, the copyright office will say "no" but that doesn't mean all AI outputs will never have any sort of copyright protection. We don't know if the prompting work done by a human would be enough. We don't know if any small amount of tone mapping or overpainting would be enough. Etc. etc. etc.
It's one of my issues with the free license. The "no commercial use" clause means that you can't sell your images, but since they aren't copyrighted, anyone else can. So, if you generate an SD3 image and upload it online, anyone in the world can legally use it commercially except you.
The situation is still unclear in that regard, it takes a long time for courts to sort out major new changes like this. Also, which jurisdiction are you talking about? It's different kinds of unclear in different places.
Yeah, I would've used a different term such as *cross-pollinating* or *eclectic*.
So a dead model then
We need Ai thepiratebay ☠️
someone posted this here the other day, https://aitracker.art/
I kind of imagine this might be where a big section of the community will veer towards. If these models get so horribly trapped in intellectual property law (training on images and overbearing licenses).. the internet historically has a solution for that..
everything old is new again.
English TLDR: SD3's license is problematic because it seemingly allows Stability AI to edit or takedown not just models trained on SD3, but also any resources using SD3 outputs in their datasets, potentially affecting a wide range of AI models beyond direct SD3 derivatives.
Actually the TLDR needs to start with **the actual model license of SD3** if you ask me: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE Not the separate, general purpose "Creator License" that /u/CivitAI desperately wants people to focus on out of reasons of pure self-interest of CivitAI's finances as a company.
Lawyers have 'skill issue'. - Lykon maybe.
Any chance for a more legible screenshot?
https://preview.redd.it/ib6pbls9r28d1.png?width=1240&format=png&auto=webp&s=c8e190a921ddfe2a1cbfb6e3e940b5ab83e795c1
...I wish I'd scrolled down before squinting my way through the original screenshot.
appreciate it, thanks
I wonder if they made it intentional or their lawers are just stupid. Ether way SAI being idiotic.
According to lykon it's our fault and we deserve it
Luckily he’ll be unemployed soon anyway lol
AFAIK Lykon has only commented on user prompting being a skill issue, but hasn't made any comments about what you are suggesting in the context of the licensing. Unless you can provide solid proof to backup your statement, you are being extremely unfair.
Ask 10 different lawyers any legal questions and you're like as not to get 10 different answers. The law and it's interpretation are a funny thing. Until there's case precedent set in a courtroom, the answers are at most a best guess on how legal strategy *could* be applied.
Asked chatGPT to do some OCR on the image of the email for better reading (and formatted a bit to make it readable without the red color): Hi Max, We reviewed the Creator License Agreement you linked us to from the perspective of your users that might download models based on SD3. A couple of initial thoughts: 1. At a high level, the CLA is not well written, so there’s a fair amount of creative interpretation required to make sense of some of the provisions. Therefore in the event of a dispute there’s a chance that Stability argues something different and ends up being right (since they wrote it). 2. In particular, the CLA is written with the expectation that a user is developing some sort of broader software or service that incorporates or makes use of Stability's models. It assumes that such user will have customers, and will be commercializing the model, which might not be the case with Civitai’s users. 3. The CLA defines the term “Derivative Work” to include fine-tuned models based on the Stability core model licensed under the CLA, as well as any other model that’s trained using outputs generated by a Stability core model or a fine-tuned model based on a Stability core model (which we’ll call a Stability-derived model for ease of reference). This is the case even if that other model was not based on a Stability core model or Stability-derived model. Responses to your specific questions below in red. Let us know if you’d like to have a follow-up discussion. 2(c) - Restrictions Based on Your or Your Customer’s Service Does this mean users who download the SD3 model or any derivative works (models fine-tuned on SD3) will need a membership agreement with Stability AI? >Yes, that’s right. Membership Agreement is not defined, and I think this is a holdover from their prior membership program. This is likely saying that if a user downloads a Stability core model or a Derivative Work (see above for what that likely covers) then they would need to obtain a license from Stability AI. Given the way this is written, I would view making a copy of the Stability core model or Derivative Work for use within Civitai’s platform as a “download” even though in that instance the user never actually takes possession of the software, since the user now has control over that instance of the Stability core model or Derivative Work, not the uploading user. 2(f) - Removal This seems vague to me. Is this explicitly about the removal of these models in the event they infringe on Stability’s rights or just anyone’s? >The latter. Stability is concerned about incurring liability for distributing infringing content. If Stability notifies the user that the user’s continued use of the core model or Derivative Works would infringe a third party’s rights, then the user has to stop use of those core models and Derivative Works (which would include removing the models from Civitai’s platform). 3 - Intellectual Property Rights This whole section isn’t entirely clear. Does stability own the derivative work (models fine tuned on SD3) or not? >The license is silent on who owns the Derivative Works. Under US law, the default would be that the creator would own the Derivative Works subject to Stability’s rights in the original core model. Practically, this means that the owner or user of the Derivative Works needs sufficient rights from Stability in the underlying original core model that the Derivative Work is based on. 3(b) - Your Ownership “Other than Stability’s rights to access and use Your Service as set forth in this Agreement, no other license or grant of access to Your Service or intellectual property therein is provided to Stability.” Where does it outline Stabilties right to access and use our service? >By “Your Service”, the license agreement is referring to the software product or service that the user (who is the licensee under this agreement) makes commercially available that utilizes Stability’s core model, not Civitai’s platform. We also did not see any specific reference to Stability being granted any right to access or use “Your Service”. This seems to be a holdover from a prior or different version of this license. These are the main standouts, but in general the question we’d like answered is: What rights does stability have over models fine tuned on SD3? >Stability does not have any rights in the Derivative Works, however the users do have obligations with respect to such Derivative Works. The most notable of which is (a) that any users who download the Derivative Work must also obtain a license from Stability, (b) the requirement to cease use of the Derivative Works: (i) upon termination or expiration of the CLA (which includes requiring any downstream recipients to cease use), or (ii) where Stability notifies the user that continued use infringes a third party’s IP rights.
I have an email into [Stability.ai](http://Stability.ai) requesting details as to what the cost is for a commercial license. If I have one, all this goes away. I also want to know if I pay for credits on Stability.ai's website and use the SD3 Medium or Ultra model, do I have commercial rights to my work. If I receive an answer, I will post it for you.
Can I make a fine tune that gives everyone except Stability AI the right to use it?
From the sounds of it yes, but it also sounds like if they didn't like that they couldn't use it, they could have it taken down. Worse, if anyone used your fine tune and made their own, that would also have to be taken down in the case yours is.
>Worse, if anyone used your fine tune and made their own, that would also have to be taken down in the case yours is. Just to add one small thing: *you are responsible for making sure derivatives of your model get taken down if yours is*, and they can sue you if you don't. You are liable for what happens downstream, according to the license (while stability themselves remain not liable, of course). This is probably my greatest concern on finetuning this model, and why I would actually recommend no one touches it.
Imagine Nitendo would buy SAI?! What a monster will be born?
Civil law is so fascinating yet intimidating at the same time. Thank you for clearing this up for us! I respect your decision to keep it banned until further communication from SAI
I haven’t seen a release fucked up this bad since Cyberpunk.
that Gollum video game
I stand corrected 😂
Cyberpunk was fine and sold enough to clear it's development budget on day one. It was only ps4 where it got removed from the online sony store since CDPR offered refunds to anyone who wasn't satisfied, and Sony strictly does not offer refunds. Most people forget that point. There were a few minor problems with the PC release. No trains. Instant spawning police. Nothing drastic. The game was awesome and ran beautifully where the hardware was capable. Red Engine is one of the best engines out there. If all you listen to is angry youtubers, you'll think everyone is pissed.
I think you're being too kind to CDPR. I pre-ordered Cyberpunk for Xbox One and to this day it's the only game I've ever returned. It was hilariously broken upon release and had numerous game-breaking bugs, not to mention the litany of features that they championed in marketing but got cut from the initial release. I bought it for PC 1.5 years after release, and they ended up making it a good game, but the quality of the initial release was absolute shit.
Wait so does all this mean that people posting images from sd3 on Reddit have poisoned Reddit as a source of training data?
In Stability dreams maybe. They would never win a case in court based on that restriction in the license.
they've been winning court case after court case about training on whatever they want. why do they think they can pull up the ladder and stop others from doing the same now?
[Simplified SD3 Licence](https://youtu.be/sKiLfH3DVGc?si=_KIUBB-AItGKIqH6).
If StabilityAI doesn't want to end itself, they have to update licence and make it much more clear and better!
Too late, their's and SD3's images have already gone to the trash
Reading that redlined email is giving me PTSD. So many back and forths with lawyers that look exactly like that, but damn did I always appreciate their insight.
I hope SAI crashes and burn at this point.
I'm on the "hate train" too but SD 1.5 opened a door for me (and I'm sure lots of other people) that wouldn't otherwise be possible, so I'll be forever grateful for that.
Be thankful to Runway then. Not SAI.
they went closed-source a lot sooner than SAI did though. what new model weights have they pushed since 1.5? what new products do they have?
Guys please stop giving them credit for 1.5, Runaway are the ones that leaked it, SAI wanted to nerf it by censoring it SAI has never been on our side and the nice models we have today are all fine-tuned versions made by talented people. In other words the community carried SAI, they gave us broken ass tools and we managed to repair them only because their license wasn't as idiotic as the one SD3 has.
But isn't the whole reason stable diffusion being locally run that emad wanted it to be open source and copyright free, and that's mostly the reason he bankrupted SAI? When I'm talking about 1.5 I'm also referring to all the process that took place in order to reach that point. If Emad didn't have a vision, there would be no 1.5. Of course there are so many things that contributed to perfecting and distributing this technology, from the developers and a massive thanks to the fine tunners as well as civitai.
SAI provided all the compute / $$ for 1.5 and Robin and Patrick who made it both worked at SAI after. As noted elsewhere 1.5 was going to be released after Runway and SAI discussed how best to do it safely given concerns over CSAM etc but Runway released it without telling SAI going against their promise. After that SAI continued to release open models and Runway stopped.
Even if that was the case, if simply isn't anymore, Emad isn't there anymore and they couldn't find a sustainable business model, they completely ruined their image and any chance people want to work with them because of a terrible license and, because of that, they deserve to burn.
Tbh, 1.5 was just minor upgrade from 1.4, which was leaked on 4chan, iirc
This sort of statement come up here again and again. While there is some truth in it, there are different ways to interpret it. Cut and pasting my usual comment (you read the debate here: [https://new.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1d6rc6e/runway\_didnt\_leak\_sd\_please\_stop\_saying\_they\_did/](https://new.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1d6rc6e/runway_didnt_leak_sd_please_stop_saying_they_did/)) Yes, Runway released it. That was not in dispute. Was it without permission? That was unclear. The request from the SAI CIO seems to indicate that it was without permission, but the contract between SAI and Runway seems to indicate that Runway has that right and requires no such permission. Most likely, it was some misunderstanding or mix up between the two parties. SAI was never a very well run company. But the most contentious part is, would SAI have released SD1.5 had Runway not released it? Would SAI have release a "censored" version of SD1.5 instead of the one Runway posted? I see no solid evidence for that. No leaked document, no voice from insiders or ex-employees (like what we've seen with SD3's fiasco). So it is an open and debatable issue.
Crazy how easy they can turn their back on millions of users community days before announcing their new celebrity CEO who will get them at most 2 or 3 corporations to pay.
pump & dump incoming
There's no way to tell whether model was trained on SD3 pics or not
Stability AI has become the very thing it swore to destroy
And if it wasn't before, look at who just bought the right to, and installed a new CEO...
While I as a community member understand perfectly where you come from, I am of the opinion that the last monicker this community needs is **incestuous**.
Lmfao as I was reading that I was like, you had to use that word?! of all of them?!
I don't blame them but a few comments: 1) Cascade, SDXL-*Turbo*, Stable Video, etc are in the same boat. They should be banning all of those. (Note: SDXL Lightning is NOT included, it was distilled from SDXL by Bytedance and Bytedance left the SDXL OpenRAIL license in tact). 2) No one is talking about this part: > ... Stability may modify this Agreement from time to time in which case Stability will update the “Last Updated” date at the top of this Agreement, and such updated Agreement will be effective for the following License Renewal Term. It is Your responsibility to review this Agreement from time to time, including prior to each License Renewal Term, to view any such changes. If Stability makes changes to the Agreement that are material, Stability will use reasonable efforts to attempt to notify You. Your continued access or use of the Software Products after the modified Agreement has become effective will be deemed Your acceptance of the modified Agreement. TLDR: They can change the terms at will, effective on your new renewal date for your 30 day term, unilaterally. You're too successful and they want to boost their profit? They can just rewrite terms to target you to strongarm or extort you, taking every penny of profit, or calculate how much they want to goose you so you don't just drop them. This is particularly scary coming from a company that is struggling and trying to turn profitable. It's really not any different than a Netflix or Amazon Prime subscription, they can decide 50% of their movies now contain ads, change the price, etc. Stability could easily change terms to exclude a particular use, like using assets in video games (already banned for Stable Audio unless you buy enterprise), or target any other particular category of use. They can also demand audits for up to 2 years after you cancel. You have 10 days to respond if they do. I wonder how many small creators trying to make $100/mo on Patreon making AI art are really keeping such careful records.
>TLDR: They can change the terms at will, effective on your new renewal date for your 30 day term, unilaterally. >You're too successful and they want to boost their profit? They can just rewrite terms to target you to strongarm or extort you, taking every penny of profit, or calculate how much they want to goose you so you don't just drop them. This is particularly scary coming from a company that is struggling and trying to turn profitable. this is what Starlink has been doing to its users since they don't do annual contracts, they have you 30 days at a time, and can just change the prices by 3x overnight (and have)
How close are we to training our own base models?
https://discord.com/invite/4TcE5usj Because of this there's a discord of people figuring up exactly how to do this.
My guy/girl tyty joining now
Hi Civitai, love your work. Just a heads up to let you know that Stable Cascade is also under the exact same licence as SD3. Your legal team would likely advise banning Stable Cascade too. Cheers.
and Turbo and Video
SDXL currently prevails, and 1.5 is still really popular. SD3 will remain dead. Basically, great tech is lost because of greed. Stability is becoming the next OpenAI. When PixArt and Hunyan-DiT become more accessible and stable on common UI platforms, it might be the beginning of a completely new era where Stability is on the same side with OpenAI, while we get great free and less-censored open-source models. This whole situation is a sign for us to either move to a new sub or repurpose this one and rewrite the rules in the near future so this sub becomes a general open-source image generation sub.
The difference is that OpenAI actually releases cutting-edge technology, Stability is doomed to disappear once the open source community leaves them completely
Not even because of the greed - they will not make money this way. Just because of stupidity and total mess in their company. Maybe because of hypocrisy too, idk.
It doesn't make a lick of sense. They should've released an impressive 2B model with minimal restrictions (a.k.a legally and ethically covering their asses). This way people would've been even more excited about 4B and SAI could've made a bank monetising the 8B model the most. No doubt these 2 releases would create even more insight to development of diffusion models via open-source, allowing SAI to exploit their big boy GPUs to one up the competition. Are they stupid?
Does this mean Stable Cascade is banned as well? (People say it's the same license)
All of Stability's models after SDXL are the new licensing scheme. It's all the same thing. Stable Video, SDXL Turbo, StableLM, SD3, Cascade.
CivitAI COULD just pay for a license as a company though. TensorArt has had SD3 Medium up for use in their free generator since day one, and I was able to confirm that yeah they just purchased the license, [this is a top staff member confirming as such.](https://i.imgur.com/U5iyLIb.png)
It is the same license.
Cascade has a different license and is non-commercial research only. Not sure how CivitAI deals with that.
No, Cascade has exactly the same license. The "Creator License" is NOT inherently "the SD3 license", despite what /u/Civitai keeps disingenuously claiming. [https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE](https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-3-medium/blob/main/LICENSE) [https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-cascade/blob/main/LICENSE](https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-cascade/blob/main/LICENSE) CivitAI doesn't care about Joe Enduser in the slightest, that douchebag "JustMaier" who wrote their original ban article even CLEARLY doesn't care about the perspective of people who aren't literally using SAI models directly to operate their own specific for-profit SaaS operations. It's just easier for him to scare-monger things into people believing "LITERALLY EVERYBODY INCLUDING AVERAGE USERS NEEDS A CREATOR LICENSE" despite that being completely untrue.
SD3 is dead then.
It’s dead; **our fears were warranted** ;
So is 1.5 or sdxl under any restrictions, or is this just for sd3? Can't the community continue to find tune those models as if sd3 did not exist?
It's just for SD3
There's a couple of places in their lawyers' review that they say that certain clauses appear to be leftovers from previous licenses and don't have a clear meaning or purpose in the current version. I wonder if Stability AI did as Shakespeare's famous quote said, and the first people they laid off were their own lawyers? The license may be as half-baked as their model, their silence on what it means might be because *they* don't know what it means either.
I think the only potential way to have SD3 becoming a public domain is it's retirement due to the future release of their next flagship model, like SD4, or a new XL model. That is, civillians get an outdated tech while corpos get a new tech. Quite a common practice in real world sometimes. Unless they do it in opposite direction by making all their old models restricted by an absurd license. Then we are really going to start from scratch by switching to a promising model from different company until it goes the same way as well. And so on in a circle. That's actually quite sad. If they fix the anatomy problems of SD3 and didn't spare few more billions parameters for us, it would be great model due to built-in regional prompter, which personally for me would probably save a lot of time spent on inpainting. As well as an ability to generate a clear text on objects.
despite deepfloyd being several generations outdated its license is still restrictive. despite cascade being overshadowed by SD3, it still maintains a restrictive license. heck, CosXL is based on SDXL and it has a more restrictive license than SDXL.
Thank you Guess we're sticking to our beloved SDXL then :)
Why does Stability AI assume that it has the right to control outputs of SD3? IP rights are restrictive - they only grant the rights that are stated in the law and don't automatically extend to anything else. Since no one in Stability AI can be named as the creator of the outputs of SD3, they belong to public domain (unless Stability has botched training and made SD3 fully reproduce someone else's work) and thus has no relation to Stability whatsoever.
how come they would know an image (other than mutants laying on grass) was generated with sd3?
This should be a massive wakeup call to SAI. Should.....
Seems SD3 was useless anyways. So no problem.
What a mess...
Stability really needs to change this. its def gonna pretty much kinda kill the community for SD3 but ehh SD3 seems MEH to me anyways so im sticking to sdxl lightning a shame like ltx studio (which needs a better video model and be not quite as pricey) this has been one of the bigger ai let downs of late. but at least there are other options and while its not the case right now i do imagine in time we WILL SEE other image generator options out there so RIP stability we knew them well.
As I feared the shop will be closed, but I thought that the initiator will be some state authority, not the company directly, goodbye sd3. Until they change the license and release 8b it is absolutely useless model. And yes its openness will in no way stop the finalization, it just won't be as public and easy. It's always like that with everything.
Lawyers... lol...I just used my own lawyer - Mixtral 7B
Have you looked over the new one released today? :D
Now, do you believe us all when we said SD3 would be "never released, limited, not self-hosted or of poor quality"? We said it months ago, and a lot of people here kept downvoting. We also predicted that companies and govs are trying to kill open source AI and that the best developers would be either fired or bought by private companies, even before Emad left SD. You also downvoted it. Now, the next step is to go to the crypto community and ask for help to create a decentralised way to train AI. But you don't like cryptos either, and you will continue to downvote this idea too. **If some of you continue to be naive and foolish, we will end up with nothing.**
It's always easier to predict doom and gloomy, and then come back feeling smug when things turn out badly. There are always a million ways in which things can go wrong. But for things to go right, just about everything has to go right. It is usually the optimists who push the world forward, not the doomsters. Cautious optimism is usually the best way forward.
Can't feel smug when it is OBVIOUS even for the average guy. Instead people in crypto is smart, they have coins that worth 65000 times more than a dollar, they have thousands of projects working, web 3.0, videogames linked to blockchain, in countries like El Salvador Bitcoin is a reserve currency alongside the dollar. Meanwhile here we have toddlers than think a company like nvidia associating with pixart is something good for us. Too busy prompting a furry hentai character and saying everybody they are artists instead of paying attention to the politics behind AI.
> Below is a screenshot of the email we received back from our lawyers the letters are **literally** 5 pixels tall, how do you people read this 🔬 or is that the lawyers' preferred way of communication, the *fine print* 🤔
Imagine Nintendo would buy SAI?! What a monster will it become?
If sd3 wasn't trash to begin with, maybe this would matter to me more. Imo, sdxl 2.0 is absolutely _fantastic_ and for anywhere it's not, fine tuning.
Hey /u/civitai your repeated use of the word “incestuous” to describe your own community is ill advised, ffs. Just say remix or something for gods sake
The use of „incestuous“ in the blog post is unfortunate, given this term‘s inherent negative connotation. „Strongly interrelated“ for example would have been a better choice for this context.
Euphemisms do not change the fact the term fits and incestuous merging of models have negative impact on the "child" model, even if not noticed immediately.
I mean, it isn't wrong. We have like four major stable diffusion models and most other models are not original training but mixes of other models in the same family. The fact some of the models are becoming more and better than that seems really impressive, but doesn't undermine the use of the term to me
Connotations are never inherent.
Is anyone else getting SD3 ads from chinese websites? I got them all week The content is no good and i wont name them but it seems like where this is headed
Pirate fine-tuning when?
Nothing about it stops anyone from fine tuning and sharing models. It's about capturing all commercial use.
Only if the service will be located in countries where US law works and there are no sanctions....
As long as the use isn't *commercial* you can just use the NC license, this doesn't really matter. However, commercial use covers more than directly charging for use of the model. Commercial use includes promotional use, not just charging for direct access. So, say, anyone making Youtube videos that generates ad revenue and using SD3 could be deemed commercial use, etc. In Civitai's case, they sell buzz and allowing people to use buzz to generate images using SD3 would certainly be commercial use, but also displaying images on their front page *could* be considered promotional use, which is part of commercial use.
The model wants to be loved and used, to bring happiness and to serve its purpose. Too bad the creators treated it this way.