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@chaos.social]

@davidrevoy oh my god, this is HIDEOUS. it totally destroyed your style to replace it with this characteristic miyazaki-ish slop style.

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@davidrevoy omg omg omg I cant stop comparing and finding violations omg not the same drawing this is horrific aaaaaa must clean eyes

[f4grx@chaos.social]

@davidrevoy EVEN THE FLOOR TILES ARE WRONG aaaaa i must calm down

[farbenstau@infosec.exchange]

@davidrevoy

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.

[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.