[the_duke]

To me it seems the other way around.

1.5 was apparently held back by Stability for weeks. Runway finally decided to just release it.

Stability requested a take down, and here you see the Runway CEO telling Stability in no uncertain terms "this ours to release, we created it, it's under an OS license, you don't hold any IP rights here; all you did was provide compute"

If anything this is a pretty stern rebuke of Stability and a sign of considerable disagreement between the two parties.

[hwers]

Well if that’s the case that’s still a pretty shitty thing to do on runways part. Just be curteous to what stability’s needs are, keep good business relations. Weird behaviour and I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future runway are silently excluded from before-public releases (which seems to be many in the years ahead).

[pabs3]

Doesn't the "OS license" mean that Runway has permission to release it already? Ack that there might be other agreements and business relations involved though.

[hwers]

Release it, fine. There’s been lots of fine tuned and continued trained SD models. Just don’t call it “1.5” which is the specific label for the model stability is training internally. Again the license ‘permits’ them to do it but seems like a very bad business decision since runway given what their service does would likely benefit hugely from early access to eg stability’s future text2video models (etc), which they now likely won’t get until everyone else (leaving someone else to possibly take market share in their field, and if this is the trade - because they got ‘impatient’ - that seems awfully not smart).

[orbifold]

It seems very weird to me that “stability” is building a company around something they didn’t create.

[ahtihn]

Seems to me that stability AI did a pretty shitty thing and runway ran out of patience. Pretty weird to paint runway as the bad guys here.

[ekelsen]

didn't runway create the model? How could stability exclude them?