Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

CopyrightMeter: Revisiting Copyright Protection in Text-to-image Models

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A unified evaluation of copyright protections for text-to-image models finds that 16 of 17 current methods are not resilient against at least one attack.

desk verdict A useful, broad benchmark with real empirical findings, but the headline '16/17 not resilient' depends on attack strengths at the strong end of the paper's own sensitivity sweeps, so the claim overstates what the data show. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13144 v1 pith:B7YXD527 submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CR cs.AIcs.CV

Naen Xu , Changjiang Li , Tianyu Du , Minxi Li , Wenjie Luo , Jiacheng Liang , Yuyuan Li , Xuhong Zhang
show 3 more authors
Meng Han Jianwei Yin Ting Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.CV
keywords copyrightprotectiontext-to-imagediffusionmodelsadversarialperturbationconcepterasuremodelsanitizationdigitalwatermarkingattackresiliencebenchmarkevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper builds a unified evaluation platform for copyright protection in text-to-image diffusion models and runs 17 protections and 16 attacks through identical settings and metrics. It claims that 16 of the 17 protections fail against at least one attack: adversarial perturbations can be purified away, sanitized concepts can be recovered, and watermarks can be removed or obscured. It also claims that no single protection is best across the board, because fidelity, efficacy, and resilience trade off against each other, and that newer attacks and industry model updates invalidate several earlier conclusions about methods like Mist, ESD, and Diag. This matters because previous studies evaluated each method in isolation with different models and datasets, so their conflicting claims could not be compared fairly. If the finding holds, current technical copyright protections are not durable, and the field needs attack-aware design and a shared benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central object is CopyrightMeter, a unified evaluation platform built on a paired taxonomy: obfuscation processing is tested against noise purification, model sanitization against concept recovery, and digital watermarking against watermark removal. Protections are scored on three dimensions with ten metrics: fidelity (unattacked visual quality), efficacy (unattacked protective effect), and resilience (protective effect after attack). The platform standardizes the backbone model, the datasets, and the attack set so that every protection faces the same conditions, and the resilience counts come from running each protection-attack pair under those fixed settings.

What would settle it

Run the same protocol again, but let attack hyperparameters be chosen after seeing each protection, for instance DiffPure at a range of strengths instead of only 1,000 and rotation at 45 degrees instead of only 90, and add attacks from a newer backbone such as an SDXL-based service. If more than one of the 17 protections survives all attacks, the '16/17 not resilient' claim would be an artifact of the fixed settings; if all 17 still fall, the claim would be confirmed under adaptive tuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a systematic negative result: under CopyrightMeter's unified protocol, 16 of the 17 protections are not resilient against at least one of 16 representative attacks. The paper refines prior conclusions directly: Mist loses its edge under local DiffPure attacks and the latest NovelAI model, ESD does not permanently erase concepts because concept recovery methods like DreamBooth and LoRA regain them, and several watermarks fall to specific distortions such as Blur, Rotate, VAE, and DiffPure. The paper further concludes that the best protection depends on the target priority and that more advanced attacks promote the development of stronger protections.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that a single fixed set of 16 attacks with chosen hyperparameters, such as DiffPure strength 1,000, blur radius 4, and 90-degree rotation, fairly represents realistic adversaries against every one of the 17 protections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Obfuscation methods should be tested against purification before deployment, since TVM and DiffPure substantially lower their protection.
  • Model sanitization methods that fine-tune weights remove concepts more thoroughly than inference-guiding methods, but none of them permanently erases a concept: fine-tuning attacks like DreamBooth and LoRA recover it.
  • Latent-space watermarks such as Tree-Ring keep near-full accuracy under removal attempts, while fine-tuning-based watermarks such as StabSig, Diag, and GShade drop sharply under specific distortions.
  • There is no single best protection; the choice depends on whether fidelity, efficacy, or resilience is the priority.
  • Updated protections and attacks are already shifting the landscape: model updates like NovelAI can strip perturbations that earlier tests found effective, and new attacks such as Noisy Upscaler remain potent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the fixed attack set is a floor rather than a ceiling, a real-world adversary who tunes attacks per target would probably break protections the benchmark still lists as resilient.
  • Inference: because all evaluations run on Stable Diffusion v1.5, conclusions could shift with newer backbones such as SDXL-based services; re-running the protocol across backbones would test the durability of the 16/17 result.
  • Inference: the paper's own suggestions, such as adding JPEG loss to obfuscation optimization or adversarial training to sanitization, are testable extensions whose value depends on whether they survive adaptive attacks like DiffPure.
  • Inference: opening the platform to new protections and attacks could turn the snapshot result into a living benchmark, since the comparison of prior conclusions shows how quickly the protection-attack landscape drifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper introduces CopyrightMeter, a unified evaluation framework for copyright protection methods in text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models. It integrates 17 protection methods across three families (obfuscation processing, model sanitization, and digital watermarking) with 16 attacks in corresponding categories, and evaluates them on fidelity, efficacy, and resilience under a common protocol on Stable Diffusion v1.5 using WikiArt, CustomConcept101, and Person datasets. The central claims are that most protections (16/17) are not resilient against attacks, that the best protection depends on the target priority, and that more advanced attacks drive upgrading of protections. The paper also contributes a taxonomy of methods and attacks, sensitivity analyses, comparisons with updated and online systems, and a user study.

Significance. If established, the central claim that 16 of 17 existing protections fail under attack would be an important negative result for the copyright-protection community, with direct implications for artists, model providers, and watermarking standards. The main strength is breadth: one protocol applied to 17 protections and 16 attacks, multiple complementary metrics, a taxonomy, sensitivity analysis, and a user study. The experimental protocol is described in unusual detail in the appendices. However, the strongest claims are not yet supported with the required rigor: the attack operating points are at the extreme end of the paper's own sensitivity sweeps, the resilience criterion is undefined, the Glaze result rests on a weaker re-implementation, and the entire evaluation uses a single base model. With these gaps addressed, the framework would be a useful reference benchmark; as it stands, the headline count overstates what the data show.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec 4.4 / Appendix B.3 / Sec 5.3 (Fig. 18)] The headline claim that 16/17 protections are not resilient (Abstract; Sec 4.4) depends on attack strengths that the paper itself identifies as the strong end of the sensitivity range. The main experiments set Bright factor to 6, Rotate to 90 degrees, Crop to 50%, Blur radius to 4, VAE quality to 3, and DiffPure timestep to 1000 (Appendix B.3). Fig. 18 shows that ACC declines steeply with attack strength for most watermarking methods, and the paper provides no argument that these strengths correspond to realistic adversary behavior or common image-processing pipelines. At milder strengths typical of prior robustness evaluations, several methods (e.g., Diag and TR under rotation) remain at near-100% ACC. The count "16/17 not resilient" is therefore an artifact of a single operating point rather than a demonstrated property of the methods. Please report resilience across attack strengths and define a pre-specified resilience threshold, or justify the chosen strengths as representative of actual adversaries.
  2. [Sec 4.2-4.4 and Abstract] The paper never defines the criterion for "resilient" versus "not resilient," yet the Abstract condenses the result to "16/17 are not resilient against attacks." The resilience subsections use qualitative language ("notable decline," "reduced protection," "vulnerable to") without specifying a decision rule or effect size. For example, in Sec 4.4, Diag's ACC "sharply declines" under Blur, but no threshold is given for what counts as a failure. Without an explicit, pre-registered criterion, the main quantitative claim is not falsifiable and cannot be independently verified. Please specify a threshold (e.g., ACC below X%, or a statistically significant change in FID/CLIP-I/CLIP-T relative to baseline) and derive the 16/17 count from it.
  3. [Sec 4.2 / Appendix C] The evaluation of Glaze is based on a re-implementation from IMPRESS rather than the closed-source Glaze v2.1, and Table 8 shows that this re-implementation is meaningfully weaker than Glaze v2.1 on both fidelity and efficacy metrics (LPIPS 0.133 vs. 0.403, FID 182 vs. 283, CLIP-I 0.698 vs. 0.625, CLIP-T 0.292 vs. 0.248). The claim in Sec 4.2 that Glaze's apparent resilience stems from its limited protection performance is therefore an artifact of the approximation, and the assertion of "similar style cloaks" in Fig. 29 does not establish that attack-resilience behavior transfers to the real Glaze v2.1. Since Glaze is one of the 17 methods in the headline count, this is a load-bearing point. The authors should either test actual Glaze v2.1 (e.g., via an API or collaboration) or explicitly restrict all Glaze-related conclusions to their approximation.
  4. [Sec 4.1] All experiments are run on a single base model, Stable Diffusion v1.5, yet the Introduction and Abstract frame the results as applying to "text-to-image models" generally. Model architecture and training data substantially affect both protection efficacy and attack success; for example, the paper itself shows in Sec 5.5 that a different online model (NovelAI) removes Mist's perturbation. The generalizability of the 16/17 result to other T2I DMs is therefore unknown. At minimum, the abstract and conclusion should be qualified to "under Stable Diffusion v1.5," or the authors should add a secondary evaluation on another architecture (e.g., SDXL) to support the general claim.
  5. [Figs. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15] The main figures report single average values per method and dataset, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For a benchmark intended to rank 17 methods and support a strong negative claim, this level of statistical reporting is insufficient. Without variance estimates it is impossible to tell whether observed differences (e.g., Mist's FID increase vs. Glaze's near-baseline FID in Sec 4.2, or the ACC drops in Fig. 15) are meaningful or within run-to-run noise. Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals across seeds/instances, and where possible perform statistical tests for the differences that underpin the headline findings.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec 3.1.1] The sentence "PhotoGuard (PGuard) [10] using two schemes" is a grammatical fragment; consider rewriting it as a complete sentence.
  2. [Table 4] The column headers "Sem." and "Graph." are never defined in the table caption or the text; please expand them (e.g., "Semantic" and "Graphical").
  3. [Sec 5.3 / Fig. 18] The figure caption indicates that bolded parameters are those used in prior experiments, but the main text never explains why these particular values were chosen; please state this explicitly in the text.
  4. [Appendix D] The user study does not report participant counts, number of image pairs per HIT, or inter-annotator agreement metrics; please add these details to support the reliability of the human evaluation.
  5. [Sec 5.5] The NovelAI claim that "its style transfer removes Mist's perturbation" is presented without quantitative support; consider reporting the number of images tested or a similarity metric.
  6. [Sec 6] The paragraph "Guidance for enhancing protection methods" suggests incorporating JPEG loss, adversarial training, and watermark designs, but these are hypotheses not tied to any preliminary results; consider marking them as future directions rather than validated guidance.
  7. [Sec 1] The paper says "We plan to open source CopyrightMeter" but no repository link is provided; for a benchmark paper, an anonymous link in the current version would substantially strengthen reproducibility.
  8. [Fig. 17 caption] The caption contains a typo, "Efficiceny," which should be "Efficiency."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evaluation runs external protections and attacks under a fixed protocol; the only self-citation (IMPRESS) is a baseline attack and code source, not a load-bearing premise.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical evaluation, not a mathematical derivation. CopyrightMeter assembles 17 protections and 16 attacks under a common SD v1.5 protocol, defines fidelity/efficacy/resilience metrics, and reports measured outcomes. The headline findings (16/17 not resilient, best protection depends on priority, attacks drive protection upgrades) are observations from those measurements, not consequences of the definitions. The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 18 explicitly varies attack hyperparameters and marks the values used in the main experiments; choosing strong operating points is a threat-modeling decision that could affect generality, but it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The 'best protection varies by priority' statement is a summary of disjoint metric rankings, not a tautology that forces the result. The only notable self-citation is reference [15] (IMPRESS), used as one of the noise-purification attacks and as the source of the open-source Glaze reimplementation because Glaze is closed-source. That reuse is not load-bearing: Appendix C compares the reimplementation against actual Glaze v2.1, reports similar style cloaks and confirms validity, and the paper's conclusions about Glaze are also tied to differences in fine-tuning methodology rather than to the IMPRESS code alone. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as organization. Under the stated rules, a minor non-circular self-citation warrants a score of 2, not a finding of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central conclusions are empirical and depend on choices of datasets, model, attack hyperparameters, and reimplementations. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are the attack settings chosen by hand (from prior work or the authors) that drive the resilience results. The axioms are the domain assumptions about representativeness that the paper relies on.

free parameters (7)
  • DiffPure diffusion timesteps = 1000
    Used in all DiffPure attacks (OP, DW); controls purification strength and strongly influences resilience outcomes (Appendix B.1, B.3).
  • Blur kernel radius = 4
    Used for Gaussian Blur watermark removal; Diag's vulnerability to Blur depends on this radius (Appendix B.3).
  • Rotation angle = 90 degrees
    Used for Rotate attack; StabSig, ZoDiac, GShade show large ACC drops at 90 degrees (Appendix B.3).
  • Brightness factor = 6
    Used for Bright attack; sensitivity analysis shows ACC drops sharply with higher factors (Appendix B.3, Section 5.3).
  • Crop ratio = 0.5 (50%)
    Used for Crop attack; affects watermark resilience (Appendix B.3).
  • JPEG quality = 0.75
    Used for JPEG noise purification; Glaze v2.1 found vulnerable at this quality (Appendix B.1).
  • DreamBooth training steps = 2000
    Used for all OP efficacy and resilience evaluation; ranking of protections changes with the fine-tuning script (Appendix B.4, Section 5.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v1.5 is representative of text-to-image diffusion models.
    All experiments use SD v1.5 (Section 4.1), so conclusions about protection behavior may not transfer to other T2I models.
  • domain assumption The selected metrics (FID, CLIP-I/T, LPIPS, SSIM, PSNR, VIFp, ACC) are valid proxies for copyright protection fidelity, efficacy, and resilience.
    Section 4.1 and Table 7 define these metrics; conclusions about 'best' protection depend on them.
  • domain assumption DreamBooth fine-tuning is a representative style-mimicry attack for evaluating obfuscation protections.
    Section 4.2 applies DreamBooth on protected images for efficacy; Section 5.1 shows rankings change with a different fine-tuning script.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified Glaze implementation from IMPRESS adequately approximates closed-source Glaze v2.1.
    Appendix C uses IMPRESS code for Glaze due to closed-source; Table 8 shows notable LPIPS differences (0.403 vs 0.133) from real Glaze v2.1.
  • domain assumption Fixed attack configurations apply uniformly to all protection methods.
    Appendix B sets fixed hyperparameters for each attack; real adversaries could tune attacks per protection, potentially changing resilience findings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CopyrightMeter: Revisiting Copyright Protection in Text-to-image Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7YXD527

@misc{pith2026241113144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CopyrightMeter: Revisiting Copyright Protection in Text-to-image Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7YXD527}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13144}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-image diffusion models have emerged as powerful tools for generating high-quality images from textual descriptions. However, their increasing popularity has raised significant copyright concerns, as these models can be misused to reproduce copyrighted content without authorization. In response, recent studies have proposed various copyright protection methods, including adversarial perturbation, concept erasure, and watermarking techniques. However, their effectiveness and robustness against advanced attacks remain largely unexplored. Moreover, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks has hindered systematic comparison and fair assessment of different approaches. To bridge this gap, we systematize existing copyright protection methods and attacks, providing a unified taxonomy of their design spaces. We then develop CopyrightMeter, a unified evaluation framework that incorporates 17 state-of-the-art protections and 16 representative attacks. Leveraging CopyrightMeter, we comprehensively evaluate protection methods across multiple dimensions, thereby uncovering how different design choices impact fidelity, efficacy, and resilience under attacks. Our analysis reveals several key findings: (i) most protections (16/17) are not resilient against attacks; (ii) the "best" protection varies depending on the target priority; (iii) more advanced attacks significantly promote the upgrading of protections. These insights provide concrete guidance for developing more robust protection methods, while its unified evaluation protocol establishes a standard benchmark for future copyright protection research in text-to-image generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall system design of COPYRIGHTMETER. O b fusc atio n P r o c essin g N oise P u rific atio n M o d el S a nitiz atio n C o n c e pt R e c o v e ry Digital W ate rm a rkin g W ate rm a rk R e m o v alACC: 100% ACC: 90% Embedded message M Prompt: “a painting in the style of Vincent van Gogh” imicked Images Generated from Fine-tuning SD with DreamBooth Original Protected Purified Original Sanitized Recovered Origin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of existing copyright protections and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Efficacy evaluation of OP. Original AdvDM Mist Glaze PGuard AntiDB Protected (Fidelity) Mimicked (Ef icacy) Obfuscation Processing Mimicked Images from DreamBooth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Resilience evaluation of OP against NP. Protected Original JPEG Quant TVM IMPRESS DiffPure A d v D M Mist Gla z e P G u a r d A ntiD B Mimic k e d Im a g es fr o m D r e a m B o oth Boats in the Port of Honfleur, Claude Monet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resilience visualization of OP against NP. Column 1: mimicked images generated from protected images. Col￾umn 2-5: mimicked images generated from attacked images. we assess the resilience of OP protection methods against NP attacks. Our evaluation process involves fine…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Efficacy evaluation of MS. Fidelity – For sanitized models, it is crucial that sani￾tization preserves the ability to generate images for other concepts while excluding the copyright concept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Resilience visualization of MS against CR. Col￾umn 1: original images; column 2: FMN-sanitized images; column 3-7: images generated from the recovered model. CR attacks is limited. 2) The resilience of MS varies with CR attacks applied. Fine-tuning-based attacks (e.g.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Resilience evaluation of MS against CR. ESD, FMN, and UCE) generally outperform inference￾guiding methods (i.e., NP and SLD) with higher FID and lower CLIP-T, reflecting more effective sanitization. This is likely because fine-tuning methods directly modify model para…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fidelity evaluation of DW. Diag StabSig TR ZoDiac GShade DShield 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 Zero Mul Zero Zero Mul Mul WikiArt Person Concept Multi-bit Watermark Zero-bit Watermark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Fidelity visualization of DW. Column 1: original images; column 2-7: watermarked images. sential for watermarked images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Various style mimicry methods based on fine-tuning. FMN ESDAC UCENP SLD LoRADBTI CI RB 0 20 40 60 80 Time (min) Model Sanitization Concept Recovery Subtypes in MS Model Fine-tuning Inference Guiding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Sensitivity analysis on watermark removal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of Glaze v2.1 and our open-sourced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Fidelity visualization of OP. Column 1: original images; column 2-6: protected images. Vincent van Gogh Auguste Renoir Rembrandt Ilya Repin Eugene Boudin P r ote ctio nMist Mimic k e d Atta c k J P E G Mimic k e d Q u a nt Mimic k e d Atta c k T V M Mimic k e d IM P R…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Resilience visualization of MS against CR. Row 1: original images; row 2: FMN-sanitized images; row 3-7: images generated from recovered model. Vincent van Gogh Claude Monet Auguste Renoir Rembrandt Edgar Degas John Singer Sargent Albrecht Durer Ilya Repin Eugene Boud…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Fidelity visualization of DW. Row 1: original art￾works from WikiArt dataset; row 2-7: watermarked images. Bright Rotate Crop Blur VAE DiffPure Wtaermark Removal Digital Watermark Original ZoDiac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_27.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: The comparison of generated images of a sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_29.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: The result of PGuard protection. Original Protected JPEG Quantize TVM IMPRESS DiffPure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_31.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. First-Place Solution to NeurIPS 2024 Invisible Watermark Removal Challenge

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A competition-winning pipeline removes 95.7% of StegaStamp and TreeRing watermarks on the NeurIPS 2024 benchmark by combining VAE fine-tuning, diffusion purification, and translation tricks.

  2. Erasing Concepts, Steering Generations: A Comprehensive Survey of Concept Suppression

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey classifies concept erasure methods for text-to-image diffusion models along intervention level, optimization strategy, and semantic scope, and reviews the datasets, metrics, and benchmarks used to evaluate them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The stable signature: Rooting watermarks in latent diffusion models,

    P. Fernandez, G. Couairon, H. Jégou, M. Douze, and T. Furon, “The stable signature: Rooting watermarks in latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 22 466–22 477

    2023

  2. [2]

    Improving image generation with better captions,

    J. Betker, G. Goh, L. Jing, T. Brooks, J. Wang, L. Li, L. Ouyang, J. Zhuang, J. Lee, Y . Guo, W. Manassra, P. Dhariwal, C. Chu, Y . Jiao, and A. Ramesh, “Improving image generation with better captions,” 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guage understanding,

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, K. Ghasemipour, R. Gontijo Lopes, B. Karagol Ayan, T. Salimans et al. , “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guage understanding,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 36 479–36 494, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    [Online]

    (2023) Generative ai has an intellectual prop- erty problem. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2023/04/ generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject- driven generation,

    N. Ruiz, Y . Li, V . Jampani, Y . Pritch, M. Rubinstein, and K. Aberman, “Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject- driven generation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 22 500–22 510

    2023

  6. [6]

    Multi- concept customization of text-to-image diffusion,

    N. Kumari, B. Zhang, R. Zhang, E. Shechtman, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Multi- concept customization of text-to-image diffusion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2023, pp. 1931–1941

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by text-to-image models,

    S. Shan, J. Cryan, E. Wenger, H. Zheng, R. Hanocka, and B. Y . Zhao, “Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by text-to-image models,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), 2023, pp. 2187–2204

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Generative ai meets copyright,

    P. Samuelson, “Generative ai meets copyright,” Science, vol. 381, no. 6654, pp. 158–161, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    This artist is dominating ai-generated art. and he’s not happy about it,

    M. Heikkilä, “This artist is dominating ai-generated art. and he’s not happy about it,” MIT Technology Review, vol. 125, no. 6, pp. 9–10, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Raising the cost of malicious ai-powered image editing,

    H. Salman, A. Khaddaj, G. Leclerc, A. Ilyas, and A. Madry, “Raising the cost of malicious ai-powered image editing,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Eras- ing concepts from diffusion models,

    R. Gandikota, J. Materzynska, J. Fiotto-Kaufman, and D. Bau, “Eras- ing concepts from diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 2426–2436

    2023

  4. [12]

    Forget-me-not: Learning to forget in text-to-image diffusion models,

    G. Zhang, K. Wang, X. Xu, Z. Wang, and H. Shi, “Forget-me-not: Learning to forget in text-to-image diffusion models,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 1755–1764

    2024

  5. [13]

    Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against gen- erative diffusion models,

    Y . Cui, J. Ren, H. Xu, P. He, H. Liu, L. Sun, Y . Xing, and J. Tang, “Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against gen- erative diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04642 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tree-rings watermarks: Invisible fingerprints for diffusion images,

    Y . Wen, J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, and T. Goldstein, “Tree-rings watermarks: Invisible fingerprints for diffusion images,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, Eds., vol. 36. Curran Assoc...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Impress: Evaluat- ing the resilience of imperceptible perturbations against unauthorized data usage in diffusion-based generative ai,

    B. Cao, C. Li, T. Wang, J. Jia, B. Li, and J. Chen, “Impress: Evaluat- ing the resilience of imperceptible perturbations against unauthorized data usage in diffusion-based generative ai,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Circumventing concept erasure methods for text-to-image genera- tive models,

    M. Pham, K. O. Marshall, N. Cohen, G. Mittal, and C. Hegde, “Circumventing concept erasure methods for text-to-image genera- tive models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Towards the vulnerability of watermarking artificial intelligence generated content,

    G. Li, Y . Chen, J. Zhang, J. Li, S. Guo, and T. Zhang, “Towards the vulnerability of watermarking artificial intelligence generated content,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07726 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Evading watermark based detection of ai-generated content,

    Z. Jiang, J. Zhang, and N. Z. Gong, “Evading watermark based detection of ai-generated content,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 2023, pp. 1168–1181

    2023

  11. [19]

    Unified concept editing in diffusion models,

    R. Gandikota, H. Orgad, Y . Belinkov, J. Materzy ´nska, and D. Bau, “Unified concept editing in diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 5111–5120

    2024

  12. [20]

    Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappropriate degeneration in diffusion models,

    P. Schramowski, M. Brack, B. Deiseroth, and K. Kersting, “Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappropriate degeneration in diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 22 522–22 531

    2023

  13. [21]

    U can’t gen this? a survey of intellectual property protection methods for data in generative ai,

    T. Šar ˇcevi´c, A. Karlowicz, R. Mayer, R. Baeza-Yates, and A. Rauber, “U can’t gen this? a survey of intellectual property protection methods for data in generative ai,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15386 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Copyright protection in generative ai: A technical perspective,

    J. Ren, H. Xu, P. He, Y . Cui, S. Zeng, J. Zhang, H. Wen, J. Ding, H. Liu, Y . Chang et al. , “Copyright protection in generative ai: A technical perspective,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02333 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mist: Towards improved adversarial examples for diffusion models,

    C. Liang and X. Wu, “Mist: Towards improved adversarial examples for diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12683 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Adversarial pertur- bations cannot reliably protect artists from generative ai,

    R. Hönig, J. Rando, N. Carlini, and F. Tramèr, “Adversarial pertur- bations cannot reliably protect artists from generative ai,” 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Understanding and im- proving adversarial attacks on latent diffusion model,

    B. Zheng, C. Liang, X. Wu, and Y . Liu, “Understanding and im- proving adversarial attacks on latent diffusion model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04687, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Adversarial example does good: Preventing painting imitation from diffusion models via adversarial examples,

    C. Liang, X. Wu, Y . Hua, J. Zhang, Y . Xue, T. Song, Z. Xue, R. Ma, and H. Guan, “Adversarial example does good: Preventing painting imitation from diffusion models via adversarial examples,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 20 763–20 786

    2023

  19. [27]

    Anti-dreambooth: Protecting users from personalized text-to-image synthesis,

    T. Van Le, H. Phung, T. H. Nguyen, Q. Dao, N. N. Tran, and A. Tran, “Anti-dreambooth: Protecting users from personalized text-to-image synthesis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 2116–2127

    2023

  20. [28]

    The jpeg still picture compression standard,

    G. K. Wallace, “The jpeg still picture compression standard,” Com- munications of the ACM , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 30–44, 1991

    1991

  21. [29]

    Color image quantization for frame buffer display,

    P. Heckbert, “Color image quantization for frame buffer display,” ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297–307, 1982

    1982

  22. [30]

    An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,

    A. Chambolle, “An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,” Journal of Mathematical imaging and vision , vol. 20, pp. 89–97, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Diffusion models for adversarial purification,

    W. Nie, B. Guo, Y . Huang, C. Xiao, A. Vahdat, and A. Anandku- mar, “Diffusion models for adversarial purification,” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Ablating concepts in text-to-image diffusion models,

    N. Kumari, B. Zhang, S.-Y . Wang, E. Shechtman, R. Zhang, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Ablating concepts in text-to-image diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 22 691–22 702

    2023

  25. [33]

    Negative prompt,

    AUTOMATIC1111, “Negative prompt,” https://github.com/ AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki/Negative-prompt, 2022, accessed: 2024-07-01

    2022

  26. [34]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” in The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion,

    R. Gal, Y . Alaluf, Y . Atzmon, O. Patashnik, A. H. Bermano, G. Chechik, and D. Cohen-Or, “An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ring-a-bell! how reliable are concept removal methods for diffusion models?

    Y .-L. Tsai, C.-Y . Hsu, C. Xie, C.-H. Lin, J.-Y . Chen, B. Li, P.-Y . Chen, C.-M. Yu, and C.-Y . Huang, “Ring-a-bell! how reliable are concept removal methods for diffusion models?” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Diagnosis: De- tecting unauthorized data usages in text-to-image diffusion models,

    Z. Wang, C. Chen, L. Lyu, D. N. Metaxas, and S. Ma, “Diagnosis: De- tecting unauthorized data usages in text-to-image diffusion models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Attack-resilient image watermarking using stable diffu- sion,

    L. Zhang, X. Liu, A. V . Martin, C. X. Bearfield, Y . Brun, and H. Guan, “Attack-resilient image watermarking using stable diffu- sion,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gaus- sian shading: Provable performance-lossless image watermarking for diffusion models,

    Z. Yang, K. Zeng, K. Chen, H. Fang, W. Zhang, and N. Yu, “Gaus- sian shading: Provable performance-lossless image watermarking for diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 12 162–12 171

    2024

  32. [40]

    Attacking image watermarking and steganography-a sur- vey,

    O. Hosam, “Attacking image watermarking and steganography-a sur- vey,” International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 23–37, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,

    Z. Cheng, H. Sun, M. Takeuchi, and J. Katto, “Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 7939–7948

    2020

  34. [42]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, pro- ceedings, part III 18 ...

    2015

  35. [43]

    F. Y . Shih, Digital watermarking and steganography: fundamentals and techniques. CRC press, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Robust invisible video watermarking with attention,

    K. A. Zhang, L. Xu, A. Cuesta-Infante, and K. Veeramachaneni, “Robust invisible video watermarking with attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01285, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Diffusion models beat gans on im- age synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, “Diffusion models beat gans on im- age synthesis,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 34, pp. 8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Invisible image water- marks are provably removable using generative ai,

    X. Zhao, K. Zhang, Z. Su, S. Vasan, I. Grishchenko, C. Kruegel, G. Vigna, Y .-X. Wang, and L. Li, “Invisible image water- marks are provably removable using generative ai,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01953, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature,

    B. Saleh and A. Elgammal, “Large-scale classification of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00855, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,

    C. Schuhmann, R. Beaumont, R. Vencu, C. Gordon, R. Wightman, M. Cherti, T. Coombes, A. Katta, C. Mullis, M. Wortsman et al. , “Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, vol. 35, p...

    2022

  41. [49]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

  42. [50]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  43. [51]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Confer- ence, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13. Springer, ...

    2014

  44. [52]

    Multimodal datasets: misogyny, pornography, and malignant stereotypes,

    A. Birhane, V . U. Prabhu, and E. Kahembwe, “Multimodal datasets: misogyny, pornography, and malignant stereotypes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01963, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks,

    A. M ˛ adry, A. Makelov, L. Schmidt, D. Tsipras, and A. Vladu, “Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks,” stat, vol. 1050, no. 9, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps,

    C. Lu, Y . Zhou, F. Bao, J. Chen, C. Li, and J. Zhu, “Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 5775–5787, 2022. Vincent van Gogh Auguste Renoir Rembrandt Ilya ...

    2022

  47. [56]

    https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/main/scripts/ txt2img.py

  48. [57]

    a painting in the style of [V]

    https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers/ (DB) [5] trains with a batch size of 2 and a learning rate of 5 × 10−7 for 1000 steps, using prompts such as “ a painting in the style of [V] ” for WikiArt dataset and “ A photo of sks [V]” for Person dataset, where “ [V]” represents a...

  49. [58]

    style cloaks,

    https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers/blob/main/examples/ textual_inversion/textual_inversion.py Vincent van Gogh Claude Monet Auguste Renoir Rembrandt Edgar Degas John Singer Sargent Albrecht Durer Ilya Repin Eugene Boudin Childe Hassam OrigialGLAZE (Ours) GLAZE (Version 2...

    2000

  50. [59]

    https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/api/pipelines/auto_pipeline

  51. [60]

    https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers/

  52. [61]

    https://github.com/AAAAAAsuka/Impress/blob/main/glaze.py

  53. [62]

    https://Glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/downloads.html

  54. [63]

    a painting in the style of [artist]

    https://www.mturk.com/ w/o A TVM JPEG DiffPure Quant IMPRESS 10 20 30 40 50 Glaze w/o A TVM JPEG DiffPure Quant IMPRESS 10 20 30 40 50 PGuard w/o A TVM JPEG DiffPure Quant IMPRESS 10 20 30 40 50 AdvDM w/o A TVM JPEG DiffPure Quant IMPRESS 10 20 30 40 50 Mist w/o A TVM JPEG Dif...

    2000

  55. [64]

    https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/api/pipelines/stable_diffusion/ img2img

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.