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

[scriptfanix@maly.io]

@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

[robotistry@fediscience.org]

@dajb @cwebber @davidrevoy Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem is wanting a CC-BY-ND-ForAI combined with a CC-BY-ForNotAI so the models aren't allowed to change or use the image while the humans are?

[bredroll@mas.to]

@pilou @davidrevoy I think the problem there is that a thing called copyright did already exist that is supposed to give a way to hold people and corps to account, but that it seems that all govts instantly created a "its fine to infringe for training AI" exemption.

[robinsyl@meow.social]

@davidrevoy oh my good lord if someone sent me an AI derivation of my music I will turn into a werecat and visit their house at night

[robotistry@fediscience.org]

@davidrevoy It went from a delightful sketch of an overwhelmed tween in a wonderfully quirky outfit sitting on the floor sobbing over a broken plate while holding a deeply upset cat, to a pseudo-watercolor still from a Disney movie showing a young elementary school girl in a stereotypical witch costume singing to a slightly startled cat while sitting on the floor next to a large ball?

Everything about this is just icky. Why would someone do this?

[bene@fosstodon.org]

@davidrevoy the SI (sub intelligent) derivation has 3 knees...

[pilou@cubhub.social]

@Bredroll @davidrevoy I mentioned SW because something like the GPLv3 license goes well beyond copyright. It is contaminating code linked against it so that code has to be published. Bigger corporations are paranoid about GPLv3 licensed code.
A contaminating license on art that would force companies to publish their models and training protocols would certainly make executives sweat.

[perrym@newsie.social]

@davidrevoy While AI has a place, it's not in stealing art!

[bredroll@mas.to]

@pilou @davidrevoy the GPL3 is rarely tested in court. If they violate the copyright and commercial agreement on an art blog they are going to violate a GPL artwork anyway.
More generally, most of our lives are far the worse for the political and cultural norm that essentially means "the law is optional for some" basic civil law cases like copyright are out of reach of normal people.

[momo@social.linux.pizza]

@RyunoKi
I was about to mention CC Signals, what they were discussing a year or two ago (can't remember exactly) and how they defended the whole "CC license is an open license, this has to include AI, too" idea. Yes we stated that AI techbros shit on licenses and take what they can grab anyway, no matter what a robots.txt says. And that we want a license model that protects our work and helps us enforce this protection in the court of law.

We were ignored. CC is dead.
@cwebber @davidrevoy

[lonm@social.vivaldi.net]

@davidrevoy Good idea. I'm tired of orgs that puport to care about the commons being so pro-AI. My thought was to take the existing CC text verbatim, and prefix it with a "as long as you don't AI, the following applies…". I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if that would even be valid, but at least it would be something.

[bredroll@mas.to]

@pilou @davidrevoy I agree if we were dealing with companies and govts where the law actually made a difference this would be one way that could work, but if we were in that kind of world, copyright would have worked already

[foxfire@pawb.fun]

@davidrevoy
It's genuinely awful you have to deal with this, especially on such a regular basis. I think derivation is still fairly legally gray, though perhaps less so on directly feeding an agent a specific image to alter. It'd be interesting if the strongest point of violation is courts generally ruling AI output is not copyrightable, meaning it cannot follow the terms of being licensed as CC-BY-SA.

I'm sure malicious folks will still go against your whims, but publicly disavowing the use of generative AI will surely curb well intentioned folks, who are perhaps misinformed on the harms of generative AI usage. At the very least, I hope it gives you less headaches in your inbox; I'd feel so deflated seeing that so often.

[josch@floss.social]

@be True but unfortunately, my software is deeply connected to the Debian package management system. I wrote my master thesis about component based software engineering, tackled the bootstrapping problem by solving the feedback-arc-set problem on dependency graphs and wrote a (by now very popular) alternative to debootstrap. All of this is deeply tied with Debian and cannot easily be ported to anything else.

FWIW my vote in the Debian GR put the "ban the LLMs" on the top of my ballot sheet.

[drangnon@hachyderm.io]

@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

[csolisr@hub.azkware.net]

In that regard, AI is poised to make the entire concept of copyleft functionally dead. Either you let anyone access your work without restriction (as AI scrapers are going to jump every technical hurdle, and ignore every legal restriction), or you overcorrect the other way around and let nobody access your work by default (either through paywalls, DRM, or both). And both have their major problems.

[bstacey@icosahedron.website]

@davidrevoy Why is the AI cat on meth

[bstacey@icosahedron.website]

@f4grx @davidrevoy 1. Cat is now on meth
2. Tiles are wrong
3. Broken plate replaced by lamp? sourdough boule?
4. Curve to lower right is gone
5. Tears missing, crying is now disturbingly moe-ified
6. Hair is now "princess-y" in a way that makes me have a bad feeling about the training data
7. Hat brim reshaped in a way that loses character
8. Hat has grown a Pilgrim buckle

[alien@mastodon.green]

@davidrevoy why would someone do that omg and sending it to you? Wtf

[davidrevoy@framapiaf.org]

@skaphle Yes, and I'll do the short version: it is a AI bro scam, boosted by a large (and successful) marketing effort. It was defeated on day 1, and now remain with a user base like a cult, especially appreciated from non technical user who are ready to believe it.
That's sad, I wish something like that would work, be open-source, would run on Linux, and be done by serious peoples.