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

[cy@fedicy.us.to]

crying → singing like Gloria Estaban
ket → Catbus-bus from the popular hit movie Miyazaki's My Neighbor Totoro
absolutely fascinating hat crown → buckle

gee what's the problem everything looks hunky dory to me

[ghostonthehalfshell@masto.ai]

@davidrevoy

You know the differences between the two are very subtly different emotionally.

The alteration of the context..

[deusfigendi@troet.cafe]

@davidrevoy

I like your attempt and your point very much. You dislike and prohibit AI without demonizing it or being unrealistic fanatic nor extreme.

I am not sure if it is possible to limit the cc-licenses in such a way, but of course one can always write an own license.

And if creative commons does not come along with a "no AI" variant, maybe "Art libre" does or GFDL (well unlikely, but you get the point, there are other free licenses)

[marvins@mastodon.de]

@davidrevoy

Interior monologue of the AI:

Ah, I see. A girl! It should be drawn in a beautiful way. Here's some fantastic volume for her magical hair 🪄

What's that? It cries? No excuse for an ugly chin! Also, it doesn't really cry, does it? Can I get a little idea of a smile? Perfect.

And what's that on the top of her head? A very strange hat, indeed. The artist can't even draw wrinkly wizard hats! Here ist the most perfect wrinkly wizard hat imaginable for this cute littly girl.

Ok, I don't exactly know, what's that down there – maybe a ball of some kind? Yeah, it's a child, why not! And really a checker board pattern fits this whole aesthetic far better than whatever that is in the base sketch.

All in all, I made it perfect. As everything should be.

Why do I waste my time anthropomorphising it?

[mirek@rodina-sucha.cz]

@davidrevoy CreativeCommons statement on the opt-out of "text and data mining" (TDM) for the training purposes https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CC-Statement-on-the-TDM-Exception-Art-4-DSM-Final.pdf and here is the implementaion of the "technical means" they refers to: https://www.w3.org/community/reports/tdmrep/CG-FINAL-tdmrep-20240510/

[dajb@social.coop]

@poleguy @cwebber @davidrevoy Well, also, although you can relicense, anything you've originally released just under CC BY is fair game.

[pilou@cubhub.social]

@davidrevoy I am surprised there are not more organized initiatives to curtail theft on content (fostered) by AI companies. Even open source SW seem to be lagging behind while they used to be rather good at this.

[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.