New blog post "License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, and comics."→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1178/license-update-ai-derivation-prohibited-on-all-my-art-lore-stories-and-comics
-
@f4grx
Also it's about time CC at least acknowledges the issue. I plan on heading a similar exception to CC By-SA for my upcoming music album.
@farbenstau @davidrevoy@ScriptFanix @f4grx @farbenstau @davidrevoy
They've had their acknowledgement in writing since at least 2025
https://creativecommons.org/cc-signals/ -
@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
You can license your art as you like. Nobody will sue you for using a #CreativeCommon license with additional clausoles. That's just plain #FUD spreading.
Just double check that there is no evident contraddiction between the license and the #NoAI addendum.
My only suggestion is to actually set a (pretty high) price tag on "training" over your art.
That's because to prove copyright infridgement in many courts, you must be able to prove an economical demage that the GenAI should refund.
@farbenstau@infosec.exchange@giacomo @davidrevoy The problem isn't using a CC license as a template, since the license text itself is CC-0, but you should make it clear that it is not in any way a CC-something license. To do so, choose a license name that doesn't mention CC at all, and maybe add a Preamble text explaining that it draws heavily from CC-whatever, as it is legal to base one's own licenses on their text, but is not an official CC license. And yes, anticipating and handling potential contradictions between the base license and your additional clauses is a RPITA, you're absolutely correct there. You will probably need to add some legalese explaining that the license isn't completely void in case of a contradiction that went unnoticed during the creation of the derivative license, plus some way of handling it after the fact.
-
@h5e @f4grx @davidrevoy that “better” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Whatever happened to respecting art and ideas? I can understand wanting to see a ‘finished’ version of the sketch in the example, but that’s not up to me or a machine to do so. Just leave it to the imagination - of which AI bros have none (imho)
@richrockster @h5e @f4grx @davidrevoy I think the humanities are where vitalism still holds strong. When someone reduces human nuance to something that can be leveled up by a machine it gets pretty insulting to those who believe in that vitalism.
-
Do you plan to make the artwork closed-source at some point (that is, to forbid derivatives altogether, in order to accommodate for the AI derivation restriction)?
@csolisr Techbros don't care about copyright so it wouldn't change anything?
-
@dalias @poleguy @cwebber @davidrevoy no
If only it were that simple:
"CC licenses apply only when copyright permission is required. If exceptions or limitations apply, then the CC license terms don’t apply."
https://creativecommons.org/using-cc-licensed-works-for-ai-training-2/
@dajb @dalias @poleguy @davidrevoy I worked at CC, am familiar with what the licenses say. And attribution is still a requirement: if it's going to be a requirement to respect proprietary licenses going into datasets, it will also be a requirement to preserve attribution. The thing I am pushing on here is that whatever copyright outcome we get in terms of LLM ingestion and generation of content needs to be *equitable*, and on that front, attribution remains a requirement. You can't just hoover up the commons ignoring the few requirements it does have because it's the commons.
-
New blog post "License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, and comics."
→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1178/license-update-ai-derivation-prohibited-on-all-my-art-lore-stories-and-comics@davidrevoy The sloppers just push-push-push. They’ve let the computer completely take over their executive function.
-
@dajb @dalias @poleguy @davidrevoy I worked at CC, am familiar with what the licenses say. And attribution is still a requirement: if it's going to be a requirement to respect proprietary licenses going into datasets, it will also be a requirement to preserve attribution. The thing I am pushing on here is that whatever copyright outcome we get in terms of LLM ingestion and generation of content needs to be *equitable*, and on that front, attribution remains a requirement. You can't just hoover up the commons ignoring the few requirements it does have because it's the commons.
@cwebber @dalias @poleguy @davidrevoy
IANAL and I haven't had the privilege of working at CC (merely being a Fellow) but I have seen a lot of hand-wringing on mailing lists and in blog posts.
Ultimately, however we might wish it otherwise, the consensus seems to be that if governments consider training data not to subject to copyright considerations, then neither do derivative licenses apply.
Again, I'm a mere observer. I may be wrong.
-
@davidrevoy I don't get why meat puppets submit to the machine in the first place. But I extra don't get *sending you* the results.
If I was making garbage of someone's work, I'd just keep it to myself, or sell it without notice if I had no ethics.
@mdhughes Well, I was also curious, I engaged into discussion with some of them. In short, they really think they are advanced tech user from the future, and they have the charity of bringing the "fire" to the poor caveman I am, still doing things manually. They pity my effort and hours, and my long years of continuous training; and are in contrast super proud of what they can achieve. They often position themselves as "helpful" and don't understand when I go agressive or revolted
-
@cwebber @dalias @poleguy @davidrevoy
IANAL and I haven't had the privilege of working at CC (merely being a Fellow) but I have seen a lot of hand-wringing on mailing lists and in blog posts.
Ultimately, however we might wish it otherwise, the consensus seems to be that if governments consider training data not to subject to copyright considerations, then neither do derivative licenses apply.
Again, I'm a mere observer. I may be wrong.
@dajb @cwebber @dalias @davidrevoy
I agree, that's what's happening!
Generally speaking: We are the people. The government is us.
The government is not "they." It's 'we.' If we don't accept this madness, we should not blame it on the government, or 'them' and roll over in a ditch, but we should take back control from the tech lobbyists and make the government match the will of the people.
How to do it... not so simple.
-
@davidrevoy @skaphle I didn't know that they didn't work. Ugh. So much for Cara's artist socmed website being all into Glaze.
@Verati404 @skaphle Oh yes, Cara and in august three full AI scrapping of their database of 12 Millions of artworks... Just another proof the protection and ambition of this social media were also not up to the challenge: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2026/08/23/artists-built-a-site-to-escape-ai-scrapers-are-coming-for-it-anyway/
-
New blog post "License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, and comics."
→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1178/license-update-ai-derivation-prohibited-on-all-my-art-lore-stories-and-comics@davidrevoy The absolute lack of any sort of self-awareness by the person who thought it'd be a good idea to AI-slop up your Avian Intelligence comics. what *entirely* the hell
-
@Quantillion @davidrevoy that's even worse, astoundingly enough; they were use ng the AI as a tool, so the data set and suppositions were loaded into the model, and then the company claimed their AI found the solution
For this, I am seeing people reply with 'you need your own license', possibly that could be created with a coalition of like-minded artists
@draNgNon @davidrevoy
It needs to be global, enforced by national/EU govt legislation & enforcement, or it will become a jungle of myriad legal actions with small coalitions facing multinational IP thieves. -
New blog post "License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, and comics."
→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1178/license-update-ai-derivation-prohibited-on-all-my-art-lore-stories-and-comics@davidrevoy Have you been tracking this?
-
@downey Hey, yes, pretty closely. It sounds really like CC is trying to facilitate the training of Wikipedia or big CC archive; and sort of only work with these type of big actors, owners of big catalog of content, and the entreprise who desire to train on that. With a clear bias to get subsidies from AI company and help them to train (my opinion).
But the artist of the web, the content creator? They know money doesn't come from them... Our request or needs to protect are simply ignored.
-
@downey Hey, yes, pretty closely. It sounds really like CC is trying to facilitate the training of Wikipedia or big CC archive; and sort of only work with these type of big actors, owners of big catalog of content, and the entreprise who desire to train on that. With a clear bias to get subsidies from AI company and help them to train (my opinion).
But the artist of the web, the content creator? They know money doesn't come from them... Our request or needs to protect are simply ignored.
@downey Anyway, in a world where you can't even protect a content with classic
Copyright anymore, hoping that Creative Commons could do something is naïve anyway. -
@downey Anyway, in a world where you can't even protect a content with classic
Copyright anymore, hoping that Creative Commons could do something is naïve anyway.@davidrevoy Sadly those who would do harm aren't really deterred by IP law....
The toolkit is sparse.
-
Please have a proper lawyer with copyright/licensing experience look at your idea of how to license your comics in the future.
I am pretty sure you cannot legally use a "CC-something" with an additional "no AI" clause, because then the folks behind the CC licensing might send you a cease and desist letter, since they don't approve of a CC-but-no-AI-use license just yet.
You will probably have to come up with an entire license text of your own, and call it something like the David-Revoy-no-AI-License.
If there are people who can send you a cease and desist for modifying a license about modifying your work and preventing you from sending cease and desists, there is something definitely wrong there. It's fine to give people legal advice that their modification can be rules lawyered, but threatening them as if the Creative Commons organization owns the Creative Commons license really makes me glad to give CC the middle finger and tell everyone I know never to trust anything their license of hypocrisy says.
In other words, you shouldn't be able to copyright "copyright!" -
@downey Hey, yes, pretty closely. It sounds really like CC is trying to facilitate the training of Wikipedia or big CC archive; and sort of only work with these type of big actors, owners of big catalog of content, and the entreprise who desire to train on that. With a clear bias to get subsidies from AI company and help them to train (my opinion).
But the artist of the web, the content creator? They know money doesn't come from them... Our request or needs to protect are simply ignored.
Many want to continue sharing their collections while ensuring that AI developers use them responsibly by respecting attribution, ensuring transparency, and meeting other safeguards aligned with their
Many want to continue sharing their collections while ensuring that AI developers use them
Ensuring that AI developers use them
Oh that's not suspicious as all heck. -
@davidrevoy I'm 100% with you on this. All power to you! I hope things will get better for you.
For my own software I had a clause "You are not allowed to use this software to train your LLM" until Guillem Jover (dpkg) pointed out that this would make my software non-free in the eyes of the Debian Free Software Guidelines and other definitions of free software (use for any endeavor).
It's a pity that the principles on which free software was founded decades ago can now be used against it.
@josch @davidrevoy I have seen a README which contained a paragraph like:
"It is the opinion of the author of this software, that the output of any LLM trained on this software, is a modified copy of this program (as opposed to part of an unmodified "aggregate") as per §5 of the GPL-3¹, and must be licensed appropriately, or will infringe its copyright. But also similarly for all the LLM's other training inputs."
And that should still be DFSG-free
¹ Or whatever license/§ is appropriate
-
@josch @davidrevoy I have seen a README which contained a paragraph like:
"It is the opinion of the author of this software, that the output of any LLM trained on this software, is a modified copy of this program (as opposed to part of an unmodified "aggregate") as per §5 of the GPL-3¹, and must be licensed appropriately, or will infringe its copyright. But also similarly for all the LLM's other training inputs."
And that should still be DFSG-free
¹ Or whatever license/§ is appropriate
@aspragg Yes, writing it like that would not make it non-free as far as I understand copyright law. I'd still not add such a paragraph (even though i agree with it) because in the end it will not matter what my opinion is but what some court's judgement on the topic is.
I think that using copyright for free software (what many call "copyleft") is just an interesting "hack" and if necessary copyright law will be changed to benefit those in power as it always has been done sadly.
