> Are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by clicking this link? If
> not, are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by then writing a
> Python script that uses this file to generate images, if you only run
> it locally on your GPU?
> Even if a court answers either question with "yes", it still does not
> follow that you are bound by any other licensing terms Stability AI is
> attaching to those files, a license which you never agreed to when
> clicking the link.

I don't entirely follow, I'm afraid.

Say I take a document from the Internet and then use it to do something

Copyright inherently exists in the document.

I am very likely to have done something which is 'copying' in legal terms,
either in the act of downloading it, or the act of using it, or both.

What is my legal basis for doing this? Given that there is copyright in the
work and I have copied it, I must have a legal basis for doing this, I
can't just wave my hands and say it's fine.
In common law legal systems the answer is likely to be one (or more) of;
- there is a statutory basis for my doing so (perhaps the one I mentioned
earlier in the thread or a 'fair dealing' exemption)
- there is an explicit licence attached to the document defined somewhere
by the creator (either a general one or something created by a contract
between myself and the creator)
- there is an implicit licence attached to the document defined by the
creator's actions in the light of their reasonable expectations of others'
actions, e.g. if you publish a document on the internet you very probably
imply a licence to perform such copying as is actually needed to read the

If I have clicked a button to indicate acceptance of some terms and
conditions, then very likely those terms contains an explicit licence I can
rely on.

However, not clicking a button to indicate acceptance of terms and
conditions does not mean I can do whatever I want. It means that I either
have to find other evidence of an explicit licence (maybe text on the
document?), or consider whether there is an implicit licence or exemption.
An implicit licence might well exist but is quite likely to be minimal in

If I then re-copy the material and then republish it, that would be a
further act of copying, and I would have to answer the same questions. The
fact of republication does not fundamentally change anything, though it may
be handled differently in the different exemptions or licences I am
probably relying on.  An implicit licence is less likely to exist the
further I manipulate something, as that is probably further removed from
the copyright holder's original expectations.

Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
Public archives at 
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to