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

[h5e@tech.lgbt]

@f4grx @davidrevoy why do people even *do* that??

“hey artist i like your work anyway i used a machine to make it better maybe you’ll like it” seems like a very deranged thing to do and yet

[sbourne@mastodon.social]

@davidrevoy That's awful. They made it look like she's singing, all the grief washed away.

[efi@chitter.xyz]

@davidrevoy HELLING FUK THE ARM!!

[avincentinspace@furry.engineer]

@davidrevoy I wholeheartedly agree with your mission and wish you the very best of luck enforcing that license.

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@h5e @davidrevoy I agree, it's deranged.

[giacomo@snac.tesio.it]

@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org

Consider to also add an explicit "training fee". Something like: you can use any of my images for generative AI training for 10€ each pixel.

[cwebber@social.coop]

@davidrevoy Glad you are doing something, a little uncertain what the license is exactly. But also, I kind of suspect, all of this stuff is a violation of even CC BY if these licenses were actually enforced and the other FOSS orgs who might have influenced things hadn't dropped the ball; there's simply no way to preserve the "attribution soup" of these works...

[mhunt@socel.net]

@davidrevoy laws are too slow updating to the use of A.I. I'm sorry you have to go trough this.

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@farbenstau @davidrevoy you can add exceptions to licenses. It renders them incompatible but thats the exact goal.

[dajb@social.coop]

@cwebber @davidrevoy Isn't this what CC BY-ND is for?

[cwebber@social.coop]

@davidrevoy Are you doing this *in addition to* CC BY / CC BY-SA btw?

Note that it might be possible: CC BY's legal code says:

> Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

[cwebber@social.coop]

@davidrevoy Hm, re-reading, maybe not possible to do in addition to this term. It's been so long since I thought about moral rights clauses.

[discatte@digipres.club]

@davidrevoy I had someone post aigen derivatives of some old 3d artists I was sharing back in the twitter days. I can only imagine the feeling of seeing that of my own works.

[farbenstau@infosec.exchange]

@f4grx @davidrevoy But you are normally not allowed to call them by the original license name, because the original creator of the license has a right to the name. Just like you cannot commercially sell Mercedes cars with original Mercedes branding still on them when you've swapped out the engines for your custom, non-Mercedes ones.

[be@floss.social]

@davidrevoy I'm sorry you have to do this.

[josch@floss.social]

@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.

[grum999@social.maou-maou.fr]

@davidrevoy olalala nan mais quelle misère...
Comment c'est possible ? Si les personnes qui t'écrivent avec leurs propositions s'intéressaient un temps soit peu à ton travail, ils devraient comprendre que l'IA n'est pas la bienvenue..

Courage

[johnjburnsiii@kzoo.to]

@davidrevoy

Finished? In their eyes maybe...

But what if you were planning to go all Goth with it...

Or pastel...

----
Let the originators do the finishing.

#Geez

[poleguy@mastodon.social]

@dajb @cwebber @davidrevoy I'd think it would be easier to start with CC BY-ND and then add an exception to allow for derivatives if they were not AI.

However, I am not a lawyer. Also: possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the AI companies have already trained on the data.

Laws, contracts and licenses are only useful if all parties actually agree to the terms. The written text of the licenses is really only to avoid confusion about the agreement. But the AI companies don't show good faith.

[n1xnx@tilde.zone]

@f4grx @h5e @davidrevoy
Since I'm not actually deranged (externally verified), the very notion of feeding someone else's work into an Ai to "improve" or "expand" it brings on a powerful retch reflex.

Seems about as acceptable as raping a sheep on the town square at midday.