This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stable Diffusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should add stable Diffusion model list to article 188.162.39.131 ( talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, I have created a few diffusions based off the "squint your eyes" meme trend from a year or so ago, and I was wondering if I could upload them for the use of the article. I do want to consider having a "fair use" rationale, but at the same time since it's AI work it doesn't show originality and/or authorship being in the public domain. I could consider putting a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license instead, but idk what works the best here. If you think the "creation" of mine should be in the article for explanatory purposes and what license fits, please use my talk page or reply here. Thank you!
Note: The website(s) I primarily used are: https://illusiondiffusion.net/ and https://huggingface.co/spaces/AP123/IllusionDiffusion. Mod creator 🏡 🗨 📝 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The "Usage and controversy section" states:
"As visual styles and compositions are not subject to copyright, it is often interpreted that users of Stable Diffusion who generate images of artworks should not be considered to be infringing upon the copyright of visually similar works."
However, according to the US Government Copyright website:
"When it comes to copyright, creativity can be demonstrated in a variety of ways and reflects artistic choices like the subject matter, composition, depiction, and the use of the elements of design."
As an example, one might employ the stable diffusion img2img script with a low denoising factor of 0.3 to modify a copyrighted work by incorporating new visual elements while retaining the original composition. The resulting image would become a derivative work thereby infringing on the original copyright.
A review of the relevant literature reveals numerous other references that demonstrate the subject of copyright is also applicable to visual compositions. In light of this, it is recommended that this section be revised to avoid potential litigation against users and Stability AI. 72.224.151.92 ( talk) 18:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I previously added this sentence to the article in the Capabilities section:
>Several graphical user interfaces exist that use Stable Diffusion as their base model to generate images, ranging from simple to use programs like Fooocus [1] to node-based ones like ComfyUI. [2]
It was reverted by User:MrOllie who argued that we should avoid promoting or mentioning particular UIs here. I would like some feedback from other contributes about this issue. I agree that we shouldn't pollute the SD page with too much info on GUIs, especially since there are so many, which could cause WP:UNDUE issues if we don't mention all of them. At the same time, Stable diffusion is generally not used via command line, and mentioning only the more common GUIs that have coverage by reliable sources should make the list manageable. We can also limit it to open source software to reduce the issue of WP:PROMOTION. Also, I feel that these GUIs are not fit to be mentioned anywhere else, making them orphans assuming they have their own page. It would be useful if there is some precedent for this type of situation. The closest I can think of is mentioning the individual implementations of codec specifications, like in JPEG XL#Codec implementations, although I wouldn't say that case is exactly the same. J2UDY7r00CRjH ( talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stable Diffusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should add stable Diffusion model list to article 188.162.39.131 ( talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, I have created a few diffusions based off the "squint your eyes" meme trend from a year or so ago, and I was wondering if I could upload them for the use of the article. I do want to consider having a "fair use" rationale, but at the same time since it's AI work it doesn't show originality and/or authorship being in the public domain. I could consider putting a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license instead, but idk what works the best here. If you think the "creation" of mine should be in the article for explanatory purposes and what license fits, please use my talk page or reply here. Thank you!
Note: The website(s) I primarily used are: https://illusiondiffusion.net/ and https://huggingface.co/spaces/AP123/IllusionDiffusion. Mod creator 🏡 🗨 📝 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The "Usage and controversy section" states:
"As visual styles and compositions are not subject to copyright, it is often interpreted that users of Stable Diffusion who generate images of artworks should not be considered to be infringing upon the copyright of visually similar works."
However, according to the US Government Copyright website:
"When it comes to copyright, creativity can be demonstrated in a variety of ways and reflects artistic choices like the subject matter, composition, depiction, and the use of the elements of design."
As an example, one might employ the stable diffusion img2img script with a low denoising factor of 0.3 to modify a copyrighted work by incorporating new visual elements while retaining the original composition. The resulting image would become a derivative work thereby infringing on the original copyright.
A review of the relevant literature reveals numerous other references that demonstrate the subject of copyright is also applicable to visual compositions. In light of this, it is recommended that this section be revised to avoid potential litigation against users and Stability AI. 72.224.151.92 ( talk) 18:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I previously added this sentence to the article in the Capabilities section:
>Several graphical user interfaces exist that use Stable Diffusion as their base model to generate images, ranging from simple to use programs like Fooocus [1] to node-based ones like ComfyUI. [2]
It was reverted by User:MrOllie who argued that we should avoid promoting or mentioning particular UIs here. I would like some feedback from other contributes about this issue. I agree that we shouldn't pollute the SD page with too much info on GUIs, especially since there are so many, which could cause WP:UNDUE issues if we don't mention all of them. At the same time, Stable diffusion is generally not used via command line, and mentioning only the more common GUIs that have coverage by reliable sources should make the list manageable. We can also limit it to open source software to reduce the issue of WP:PROMOTION. Also, I feel that these GUIs are not fit to be mentioned anywhere else, making them orphans assuming they have their own page. It would be useful if there is some precedent for this type of situation. The closest I can think of is mentioning the individual implementations of codec specifications, like in JPEG XL#Codec implementations, although I wouldn't say that case is exactly the same. J2UDY7r00CRjH ( talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)