in which Elroddd assumes potential legal risk for no good reasonhttps://www.destockd.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@UC64ygOa8NkECAY2KMN0Ha7A https://www.patreon...
~~This isn’t a business model, you just used an img2img model and had the prompt day “remove the watermark”. Those who make models and run the apis have a business. You (or the creator of this) do not. ~~
That’s not what he did at all. Way to not watch the video before spewing an uninformed opinion. He indexed a bunch of public domain video and made it searchable and free instead of $400/clip like getty was charging.
That’s literally nothing like what was done here. Did you even watch the video before commenting?
There is no img2img model, there is no watermark removal, or anything like that.
~~This isn’t a business model, you just used an img2img model and had the prompt day “remove the watermark”. Those who make models and run the apis have a business. You (or the creator of this) do not. ~~
That’s not what he did at all. Way to not watch the video before spewing an uninformed opinion. He indexed a bunch of public domain video and made it searchable and free instead of $400/clip like getty was charging.
You’re right, I didn’t. Retracted.
That’s literally nothing like what was done here. Did you even watch the video before commenting?
There is no img2img model, there is no watermark removal, or anything like that.
Did you not see where I striked it through and the other comment already calling that out, and wherein already admitted my mistake?
Your strikethrough didn’t work, for whatever reason. It just looks like ~~ feisty punctuation ~~