|
Mercury_Storm posted:Oh the baby seal bread mountain dew magical forest is absolutely on my bathroom wall right now, haha Oh that makes me so happy that's actually a real picture! Edit: Nah, reposting this is the new page tax.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Stability released Stable Audio. https://www.stableaudio.com/generate Tried a few things I would normally ask for like "orchestral score for theme for a sci-fi action blockbuster film, scherzo, thrilling action, grand adventure" and "dark intense orchestral theme for a tv show that is a science fiction thriller about aliens and the paranormal, a scherzo with a driving industrial beat." - Sound quality is good, as in better than Google's thing - It's been bad at making actual music, but... - ...all the samples and sounds it generates are spot on and sound awesome. If it could arrange them into actual music, I'd be over the moon. I did just give it "dark intense orchestral theme for a tv show that is a science fiction thriller about aliens and the paranormal" a few minutes ago, removing all the other descriptions, and it's still trying to generate something. I might have to restart it. This was the best I could get so far with those prompts. https://sndup.net/nyp2/ Ok I refreshed the page and that stuck one actually generated something. https://sndup.net/hjcw/ Roman fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Sep 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
Very much under high load I have 2 generated that I can see "spinning" in the bottom area but attempting to load them never finishes and getting the prompt page to load is very hit or miss still. I will listen to weird al eating a hamburger and my epic scifi background music in the hopefully near future! e: got some horrifying sounds from using a power drill to play jingle bells on a diamond, my previous clips used free credits but still have angry warning signs and not play buttons. pixaal fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Sep 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
            
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:
Heh, I posted the original issue for this error (way before SDXL) and it blew up to be one of the most commented issues on the web-ui GitHub. Just so many comments with no real solutions. Which led me to think, it's an error with many causes. My original error was with such an incredibly niche situation (dreambooth finetuned depth models) that I barely expected anyone else to have it, but, here we are. The thing about it is it all started on a specific version of the web-ui, the models would work perfectly on versions before that. Then after that version, can't happen. This seemed to be true for a lot of people with whatever it was that was causing this to happen. It's one of the reasons I think the a1111 web-ui has really just started to collapse under its own weight and become a lot worse than it once was. I use ComfyUI for my basic stuff now but, it kinda sucks because it's really no replacement for some a1111 web-ui use cases (Deforum, where the web-ui extension just is the best way to work on large Deforum projects, and some other stuff) so I'm basically waiting for SD.next to mature and hoping for the best. In my experience most of the fixes for this, they don't work for most things since like I said it has many causes, but often they'll get past errors but break things in other ways (black image and stuff)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
I haven't been able to use A1111 completely error-free in many months. Even after hours of googling and troubleshooting, updating and installing libraries, uninstalling and reinstalling everything from scratch, something always fails. And it's always different things, different errors, under different circumstances. And every time A1111 updates, something else breaks for me that only seems to break for a small subset of others. Today it's upscalers. Tomorrow it crashes on changing to certain models. Next week the inpainting UI will error out. A1111 is just a spaghetti beast of modules that don't always play nicely together, and if you're someone it works perfectly for, great, but I suspect that hasn't been the most common experience in quite a while. When I built my new PC, I switched to ComfyUI. I haven't mastered creating new workflows yet, but out of the box it just... works. I just wish it were easier to do some of the simpler things like in A1111, specifically in-UI inpainting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:A1111 is just a spaghetti beast of modules that don't always play nicely together, and if you're someone it works perfectly for, great, but I suspect that hasn't been the most common experience in quite a while. Getting strong modded Morrowind vibes here
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Trying to figure this Automatic1111 with SDXL out, enjoy my grandpas trapped in cubes       
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
This is about copyright so I think it's related. I guess this means you could train models on Fables/Wolf Among Us content now, if you wanted? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-us/ar-AA1gJvGQ quote:Bill Willingham has released the beloved comic series Fables into the public domain due to a breakdown in his relationship with DC Comics. quote:You don’t have to get my permission (but you might get my blessing, depending on your plans). You don’t have to get DC’s permission, or the permission of anyone else. You never signed the same agreements I did with DC Comics. It was my absolute joy and pleasure to bring you Fables stories for the past twenty years. I look forward to seeing what you do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
Found some words of power on bing. Roger the alien, Alaska, 2019, grainy, degradation   Roger the alien, Mexico, 2023, grainy, degradation  Sally the snail, Mexico, 2022, grainy, degradation  Aliens look best from my test but grainy, degradation applies pretty broadly well. Also bing seems to have gotten rid of the watermark in the bottom left
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Found some words of power on bing. you're making me wonder if AI can accurately do anaglyph 3d images.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
I've made some before but didn't have the glasses to test how well they worked. Nailed the aesthetic, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I've made some before but didn't have the glasses to test how well they worked. Nailed the aesthetic, however. dank
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
ok I would have shared the examples but I didn't have them saved  you tell me if it works, probably looks like poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
For comparison on the Grainy / Degradation words, here's prompts from Midjourney with varying levels of Weird applied: Roger the alien, Alaska, 2019, grainy, degradation --upbeta --s 750 --w {0, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000}        Roger the alien, Alaska, 2019, distortion, VHS quality, color bleed, water-damaged --upbeta --s 750  Roger the alien, Alaska, 2019, distortion, VHS quality, color bleed, water-damaged, anaglyph --upbeta --s 750  None quite seem to come close to the proper aesthetic. Has anyone noticed difficulty steering Midjourney away from a "Midjourney" style lately? Maybe I'm losing my touch. Seems like I can't get it to nail prompts with "in the style of" keywords lately, even with levels of weird applied to force it outside of its comfort zone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Found some words of power on bing. Okay more please
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Kosmo Gallion posted:Okay more please       
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Sally the snail, Mexico, 2022, grainy, degradation Oh dang, MJ can't do snails at all, that one's pretty solid
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Roman posted:This is about copyright so I think it's related. As noble as his intentions are here, intellectual property doesn't work like that. There is no way to consign something to the public domain other than through time doing it naturally. (This is one of the core reasons why Creative Commons was created.) What you can do is act like it is; namely, freely license it to everyone without conditions or compensation and also choose not to pursue any legal claims to assert your rights over it; but you can't legally, actually move it into the public domain. That's usually a distinction that doesn't matter (because any public statements/commitments made about said liberal licensing can be binding and effectively neuters your ability to later change your mind and go after anyone who actually took you up on your offer and so it becomes just like public domain as a practical matter); but in this case it's a distinction that very much would matter, because he's already contractually bound to DC comics to not license the property out to anyone else. So he can't put it in the public domain because it's impossible. He can't just liberally license it to everyone for free, because he's contractually bound to not do that. Which means, no, you can't do anything you want with the Fables IP because he can't give it to you to do so; and if you do, DC can come after him for it and also enjoin you from using it. (And probably make a very strong case in court that you're financially liable to DC for your use of the property too, since you should have done due diligence to discover you don't actually have a valid license.) And that's not even getting into the complexities of what additional parts of the IP that were created by DC aren't even his to try to give away in the first place and may be so intertwined with the original IP that it'd be a minefield to try to separate them into what he actually owns and what DC owns through their derivative work. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Sep 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
           
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
wow those are unsettling and cool
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:As noble as his intentions are here, intellectual property doesn't work like that. There is no way to consign something to the public domain other than through time doing it naturally. (This is one of the core reasons why Creative Commons was created.) What you can do is act like it is; namely, freely license it to everyone without conditions or compensation and also choose not to pursue any legal claims to assert your rights over it; but you can't legally, actually move it into the public domain. Hell yeah, time again for everyones favorite topic, copyright chat! Woo! You should have read the linked article because two sentences really stand out. quote:The one thing in our contract the DC lawyers can’t contest, or reinterpret to their own benefit, is that I am the sole owner of the intellectual property. I can sell it or give it away to whomever I want. If he retained the rights then he is entirely free to relicense things in whatever way he wishes. That's what the term "All rights reserved" means. If he now excercises that to release all further rights, then this is pretty open and shut. You now own Fables. So do I, but importantly, you now own it too. What will you do with your copy? On the further topic of copyright, the U.S. Copyright Office has issued a Notice Of Inquiry seeking public opinion on copyright and AI issues. https://copyright.gov/newsnet/2023/1017.html This is important. You have every right to make your voice heard on this topic. This is a case where what you say can actually make a difference. Written comments are due by Wednesday October 18th. Reply comments are due by November 15th. I will be taking my time and drafting a rather large letter touching on every topic imaginable about this. If you want to make a comment and need help sorting through some of these complex issues so you can get your voice heard, let me know. Post here or in PM and I'll be more than happy to respond/help. The fact that Stable Diffusion is free and available for everyone is huge and something I will not give up on. It's way too important to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
He can sell or give the IP ownership to anyone else, but 1) he didn't do that -- he made a legally meaningless declaration that has absolutely no impact on the ownership of the IP because, as I previously said, it is not legally possible to consign a work into the public domain, and 2) any theoretical actual legal transfer of ownership of the IP does not invalidate contracts that bind the IP granting exclusive use of it to DC. To #1, his claim is not that he gave the ownership to anyone, it's that he did something that is legally impossible: putting the IP in the public domain. Without an actual transfer of ownership, that means he still owns it whether he wants to believe he does or not. And to #2, while he can exercise his prerogative to not pursue anyone who infringes on his IP, he went beyond that and is portraying an open offer of usage to everyone else in Earth; and that means DC can take action on him for violating the contract he signed with them that gave them exclusive rights (because he is explicitly offering such license to everyone); and that also means DC can take action against anyone who ends up taking him up on his offer. He owned (and still owns) the source IP; but that doesn't mean he gets to unilaterally revoke a contract that's bound upon that IP. "All rights reserved" is a term of art of copyright law to indicate that a particular work is protected by copyright and that publication is not a grant of those rights, not the magic words of a "get out of contractual obligations free" spell; and that article you suggested that should be read pretty clearly says that he did indeed sign an exclusive use contract. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
It's almost like copyright and IP law is completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
The copyright and IP law here is second fiddle to the contract law matter. edit to add: It depends on the specifics of the contract he signed, of course, but the way he portrayed it makes it sound like he sold all of the usage rights on the IP to DC; and his ownership of the IP itself is thereby limited to basically being the financial beneficiary of whatever royalties for such usage that are owed under the contract. He can sell or give away the IP but effectively all that would be doing is transferring who gets those payments from DC. That's the rub here; he signed a contract that reduced "ownership" from "rights to do whatever I want with it" to "rights to only do with it whatever wasn't signed away". biznatchio fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
I dont know if this has been posted yet, but it has a nice list of artists and style examples. https://supagruen.github.io/StableDiffusion-CheatSheet/              
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:He can sell or give the IP ownership to anyone else, but 1) he didn't do that -- he made a legally meaningless declaration that has absolutely no impact on the ownership of the IP because, as I previously said, it is not legally possible to consign a work into the public domain, and 2) any theoretical actual legal transfer of ownership of the IP does not invalidate contracts that bind the IP granting exclusive use of it to DC. You're assuming a lot of a contract you haven't read. He may not have signed away exclusive use to DC. That is only one use of the term "All rights reserved" another is that they are holding back further licensing options until a future date at which things may change. Like today (well, yesterday...). They changed. He reserved that right until he excercised it. As owner of source material you can totally release under several different licences, each with different terms. He may not technically be able to release directly into the public domain but if you release your works under a new worldwide non revocable unlimited use transferrable etc etc license, then that does effectively the same thing. Anyone is then free to come along and use those works under that now permissive license. I will. This doesn't stop the contract signed with DC, but can make the only thing DC wanted from him meaningless, exclusivity. They'll still have to uphold their part of it. Including payments. A lot of stupid bullshit has happened over the course of 20 years since he signed that contract, that might have a little something to do with what he is protesting here in the first place. Going "You can't do that!" is hilarious because he may in fact be able to do just that. Sedgr posted:It's almost like copyright and IP law is completely hosed. Beyond. vvvv I'll fight you over those words. KwegiboHB fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
As bad as IP law is, it's better than patent law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:You're assuming a lot of a contract you haven't read. He may not have signed away exclusive use to DC. He literally says he did. In fact, according to his argument, it's the entire driving reason why he felt his only option was to try throw the IP into the public domain; because he isn't allowed to do anything else with it aside from transfer ownership. This, also, was in the article you suggested should be read. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Sedgr posted:It's almost like copyright and IP law is completely hosed. How so? So what are the four or five most probable outcomes? Something like: 1. you own anything created by AI, thus AI is just an extension of yourself, like a pen or paintbrush 2. anything created by AI is automatically public domain based on the fact that the models are based on existing art, although if you modify it by hand it is your own work again 3. anything created by AI is owned by whoever created the model, you only own a license to use it's output 4. some kind of sliding scale version of #2 where you only own the modified parts of the image presumably there will be different copyright laws for 1. static images 2. 3d models 3. moving images/movies/video clips ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:He literally says he did. In fact, according to his argument, it's the entire driving reason why he felt his only option was to try throw the IP into the public domain; because he isn't allowed to do anything else with it aside from transfer ownership. This, also, was in the article you suggested should be read. I'm going to highlight from the press release and point out specific passages. I'm willing to do a line by line for you but not in this thread, over pm if you must. https://billwillingham.substack.com/p/willingham-sends-fables-into-the "to force them to live up to the letter and the spirit of our long-time agreements" "The one thing in our contract the DC lawyers can’t contest, or reinterpret to their own benefit, is that I am the sole owner of the intellectual property. I can sell it or give it away to whomever I want. I chose to give it away to everyone." "Since DC, or any other corporate entity, doesn’t actually own the property, they don’t get a say in this decision." "their legal negotiators tried to make it a condition of the deal that the work be done as work for hire, effectively throwing the property irrevocably into the hands of DC. When that didn’t work" "DC officers admitted that their interpretation of our publishing agreement, and the following media rights agreement, is that they could do whatever they wanted with the property." "When they capitulated on some of the points in a later conference call" "they reneged on their word and offered the promised amount instead as a “consulting fee,” " "since I disagreed on all of their new interpretations of our longstanding agreements, we were in conflict." "I gave them the opportunity, twice, to simply tear up our contracts, and we each go our separate ways, and they ignored those offers." "I still can’t publish Fables comics through anyone but them. I still can’t authorize a Fables movie through anyone but them. Nor can I license Fables toys nor lunchboxes, nor anything else." "However, you, the new 100% owner of Fables never signed such agreements. For better or worse, DC and I are still locked together in this unhappy marriage, perhaps for all time." This is a part of what's called Due Dilligence. Everything I've read from this press release lends me to believe I have a right to use Fables material in any way I see fit now. I would have to see a response from DC pointing specifically to where in this contract it's prohibited before I actually do use anything. But nothing sounds like I haven't been granted an explicit license to do as I may with this. There was a contract dispute and one of the contract members did something the other contract member wouldn't like. Sounds like the good guy won in this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
so I'm messing around with Stable Audio. Its definitely not making polished music pieces, but I think it can be used for inspiration. Final Boss Fight Theme J-Pop https://voca.ro/16KClXMEbuXO Final Boss Fight Theme Country https://voca.ro/1c0RXSAaOcvJ Final Boss Fight Theme Cyberpunk https://voca.ro/11CkmScH8Yl0 Final Boss Theme Beethoven https://voca.ro/1e2vOLIJSgzx Biological Horror Screaming https://voca.ro/1fprWQ5RmoYn
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
It's like image AI a few years ago they clearly have the foundation of it. I get better results prompting like heavy metal ballad, guitar, bass, drums, somber
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:Everything I've read from this press release lends me to believe I have a right to use Fables material in any way I see fit now. You shouldn't be taking legal guidance from someone who, I'll repeat again, is claiming he is doing something that is literally legally impossible to do. Fables is not in the public domain. It cannot be. There is no legal avenue for it to be in the public domain. Period. He might as well be claiming that fairies exist. If you want to continue down this doomed argumentative path of "everyone owns Fables now", you first have to overcome this insurmountable hurdle. This impossibility is literally the reason the CC0 license exists, which is explicitly intended to be as close as possible to putting something into the public domain but not, since you can't1. Public domain means something extremely specific, that no one has rights they can assert on the work under copyright law because the work is either ineligible for copyright, or has an expired copyright; and that is simply not true in this case. DC purchased certain rights pertaining to the work, and they retain them (and we'll see which certain rights a couple lines down). As I mentioned above, his abandonment of his rights under copyright law does not place the work into the public domain. Because that is impossible. The part that you should be concerned about from his statement is this quote (aside from his use of the phrase "If I understand the law correctly" which does a whole lot of heavy lifting by itself); which is the most telling quote about the actual nature contract he signed, emphasis mine: quote:I still can’t publish Fables comics through anyone but them. I still can’t authorize a Fables movie through anyone but them. Nor can I license Fables toys nor lunchboxes, nor anything else. "Nor can I license ... anything" is exactly the understanding a layman would take from a contract that grants exclusive rights, because it is the only sort of contract that has that effective result. And, of course, without looking at the specific verbiage in the contract itself it's impossible to be 100% certain beyond trying to interpret the words of this guy who demonstrably does not actually understand the legal complexities of his situation (and nowhere does he even suggest he had a lawyer on his side at all, framing everything as his conversations between himself and DC's lawyers), but it is exceedingly unlikely, almost to the point of being laughable to suggest, that the contract binds to him, personally and not to the IP in question. The mere suggestion that he can get around having transferred exclusive rights by just transferring the underlying ownership to someone else as "One Weird Trick Corporate Attorneys Don't Want You To Know" is absurd, because if that was the case he could have just transferred his ownership to 'Fables LLC', a sole member company owned and operated by himself, and magically freed himself of the contract. But if you want to believe in fairies and that he somehow did the impossible, by all means, go out and try to build a business on Fables content. The only thing you have to fear is DC. 1 - Also note that putting Fables under the CC0 is not something he can do, since CC0 is a license; and per his own words he cannot license creation of Fables content or products to anyone else. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 02:30
|
|
|
quote:The mere suggestion that he can get around having transferred exclusive rights by just transferring the underlying ownership to someone else as "One Weird Trick Corporate Attorneys Don't Want You To Know" is absurd, because if that was the case he could have just transferred his ownership to 'Fables LLC', a sole member company owned and operated by himself, and magically freed himself of the contract
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:But if you want to believe in fairies and that he somehow did the impossible, by all means, go out and try to build a business on Fables content. The only thing you have to fear is DC. I think you're missing quite a few points here. The Fables material may not go directly to public domain, a specific term I am all too familiar with. That doesn't mean I can't use said materials. If DC doesn't own exclusive rights under their contract, they may not be able to prevent him from relicensing everything so that everyone (even you) can use as they please. This is a twenty year old contract. A LOT OF poo poo HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. This is the very heart of the argument. Do you need me to reach out to him and tell him specifically how he can make a unique license which fits the bill of 'public domain but legally not' which he can release all the IP he owns under? You seem too hung up on the word public domain to understand what is actually going on here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
IP law is all about very precisely defining permissions, the exact terminology matters a lot for legal stuff since that defines what the permissions are that you gain (or lose). Which is why I hired an IP lawyer to do stuff instead of a handshake agreement, since there's a lot of poo poo like trademarks only being transferrable if you specify that you are also transferring the goodwill attached to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 17:36
|
|