Post AvVqnQsYEOcU5yd6AK by fuzzylynx
(DIR) More posts by fuzzylynx
(DIR) Post #AvV65QJwLkHHjNW99U by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 2 repeats
Dear @creativecommons ,I read your article about your initiative for new licenses for dataset holders in the AI industry.Let’s be clear: I do not want to re-license my hundreds of CC-By comic pages to please AI giants.I wish you would support CC artists suffering from massive plagiarism. You should enforce your own existing licenses against AI mass crawling. It seems you’ve joined the battle only after the casualties and still managed to side with the wrong people.https://creativecommons.org/2025/06/25/introducing-cc-signals-a-new-social-contract-for-the-age-of-ai/
(DIR) Post #AvV6FJGFS4YgjRVM0G by Ray_Of_Sunlight@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons I agree with you, And you gotta excuse me for my language...But the AI Giants can go suck over a thousand dicks followed by grabbing their AI garbage and shoved them in the deepest part of their buttholes.
(DIR) Post #AvV6TXIC52BSItCMUK by f4grx@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons What a shame, creative commons. What would Aaron think about this?
(DIR) Post #AvVA8Gm0hbSQo2GA40 by carl@kde.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons from the 4 proposed signals (credit, direct contribution, ecosystem contribution and open), none of them is about forbidding the usage of the assets to train AI😬https://creativecommons.org/ai-and-the-commons/cc-signals/implementation/
(DIR) Post #AvVAV7dqort594L9Zg by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@doctormo Sure! But I think the four links on their Github https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals?tab=readme-ov-file#cc-signals-1 with mini draft 'key idea' for the four new licenses speaks already a lot about the intent, the philosophy behind it.- Tailoring an attribution licence for AI giants in case they change their minds and decide to respect something.- Believing in the royalties breadcrumb system, whereby the AI lord decides in good faith (lol, their words) who receives the financial micro-percentage income from reuse. yay.
(DIR) Post #AvVBL6Hd7CA9zTjPu4 by davidbenque@mastodon.ie
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons "a new pact" wow take that Big Tech 😂
(DIR) Post #AvVBZ6f2VYdfDRMMts by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I would be happy if they just said: there were always clear rules. cc by can be used by machines, but then every single creator whose creations got used must be attributed properly.Most of my creations are under cc by-sa. If a machine builds something on top of my creations, the rule *should* be clear: keep the license. If it reads cc by-sa, it must be cc by-sa (or a compatible license like GPLv3).1/2@creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvVBZ7KW1LodI4lUY4 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @creativecommons Very true. I wish they could help creators and huge CC content providers enforce CC licensing in the era of AI. That's all. CC-By-Sa and Wikipedia are good examples of this. CC should fight to make all prompt output CC-BY-SA if they used Wikipedia.Also, what I wish for is a clear NOAI tag that artists could use, (eg. CC-BY-NOAI )This would complement the BY/SA/NC/ND toolset and make it easier to enforce the licence if the artwork were to be found in any dataset.
(DIR) Post #AvVBZ8k4lnr7fdjQ1o by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy Alternatively let’s apply the same to humans: allow me to build on Star Wars for my own art, then I’ll gladly allow machines similar with my works.But doing that requires new international "Intellectual Property" treaties.2/2@creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvVC8CqzTX8iYdgddI by Linebyline@mastoart.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ms_zwiebel In addition to what @davidrevoy said, NOAI is a problem because it's an opt-out: Anyone not using it is presumed opted-in.Accepting a NOAI tag means conceding that literally everything that *doesn't* have the tag is fair game for the scrapers. And it's not fair to artists, especially ones with huge bodies of work, to make them go and tag each and every work with a new NO[whatever] every time a new exploitative technology comes out.
(DIR) Post #AvVC8EFUHwKSsu9iSG by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Linebyline @ms_zwiebel I agree completely. The ideal would be to not have to opt out at all. If CC had a spine, it should be built-in every CC license by default.
(DIR) Post #AvVC8FoyRUJDlFlZPE by Linebyline@mastoart.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ms_zwiebel @davidrevoy To put it a bit more pithily: It's still assault even if they weren't wearing a "don't punch me" tag.
(DIR) Post #AvVCFhza6LJ39wHZ56 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ms_zwiebel @creativecommons Unfortunately, there is no mention of a 'no AI' rule... quite the opposite, in fact. You can read the four drafts by following the links here: https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals?tab=readme-ov-file#cc-signals-1 It's just an attempt to reinvent CC-By, but written 'for AI', so it's modern instead of enforcing their own legacy CC-By. There's also the promise of breadcrumbs for artists in the form of financial contributions, but it's the AI giants who decide who gets how much in good faith, lol. It cannot work.
(DIR) Post #AvVCFiWu6RxepHsB1M by Merovius@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ms_zwiebel @creativecommons My understanding is `ai=n` would mean to disallow any use by AI, no?That is, the IETF AI preference standard already gives you the way to do a blanket yes/no-AI statement. The CC signals thing is just to then add fine-grained exceptions in case the use is contributed back.That seems fine to me. I would still just set `ai=n`, but I can't see the harm in allowing people to opt-in to use under specific conditions.
(DIR) Post #AvVD6z8f589dgavxJ2 by tischbein3@mograph.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy As long as certain countries allow to circumvent copyright for dtata mining.they can create as many new icons as they want. As long as (C) does not work, CC wouldn't either.
(DIR) Post #AvVEZSaxG0YX6cJFdA by knbrindle@wandering.shop
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons I just read this and... I have no idea what they're saying. It just seems to be an entire page of jargon and rah-rah devoid of any actual meaning.As far as I can see, the fundamental issue is that they're proceeding from the flawed position that the "AI" companies have any redeeming value to society at large whatsoever (they don’t), and that they care what license we publish under (they don’t).
(DIR) Post #AvVEsWXGpXvspTfzzU by skobkin@gts.skobk.in
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoyBut... Who are the right people?And what do you expect as the "right" solution? To deny CC-licensed art usage for machine learning by default? I don't think that would be fair too.
(DIR) Post #AvVEsX1P1W2GKvm3xQ by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@skobkin In my final sentence, the 'right people' metaphor clearly refers to the users of their licences: CC artists, authors and content creators. What they wrote here looks tailored to the AI giant industry. I would tell them that they are kissing up in the hope of receiving crumbs.Yes, CC should build the 'no AI' rule into all their license to protect users, and offer an 'AI' option in their toolset (BY/SA/NC/ND) for those who want to opt in. I think that would be fair.
(DIR) Post #AvVFB9x51JrIHzdQ4e by marshray@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy Looks like they have a wishy-washy page that speaks to some of that.https://creativecommons.org/about/legal-tools-licenses/Perhaps the creation, recognition, and use (or choice to not use) of a new “AI=Yes” license would go against whatever arguments fly now.Or they could just be flushing their credibility.
(DIR) Post #AvVFeY1gak8xLtnpD6 by breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @creativecommons I guess NC and ND already forbid most of the AI use. They just don’t care about it…
(DIR) Post #AvVFeYqjWwybuDgamG by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@breizh @creativecommons @ArneBab True!
(DIR) Post #AvVFgJruCVgE1Q4ZEm by untsuki@udongein.xyz
0 likes, 0 repeats
@skobkin @davidrevoy From how I see it CC-BY licensed art is allowed for machine learning, except only if it actually follows the license. The fact that software companies cannot meaningfully do that in image generators and LLMs is not the fault of the license or people wanting their work to be at least credited.
(DIR) Post #AvVFgKEwoq6zAsqy9Y by skobkin@gts.skobk.in
0 likes, 0 repeats
@untsuki @davidrevoyWait. When you saying "at least credited" that means that the work was either reproduced or modified. But that's not how generative models work.They can mimic the style, but license is not applied to it.And if user uses something like Stable Diffusion with David's work as an input and asks it to modify it, then it's on the user.Let's say I'm asked to draw an image in the style of David (I can't draw, but that's irrelevant). I do that. Do I need to credit David? For me that's not really clear.I personally can leave a link to his works because I like them and want them to be spread. But I don't think that every author inspired by his works should do that.
(DIR) Post #AvVFgKmGowlaqERa5o by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@skobkin @untsuki If the AI dataset has a CC-By input, the output is a derivative work and therefore the attribution should follow. This is a possible enforcement of the CC Attribution license.Also, the concept of 'style' does not apply to machines; they cannot define a style that is not connected to a clear input file. If a file was used in the process, it's reuse. That's all. ¯\(ツ)/¯
(DIR) Post #AvVG5CauNnuKhWzHSy by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@knbrindle @creativecommons I think you understood the point correctly, immediately identifying the two major flaws in their reasoning. 👍 Yes, they worked hard on the rah-rah jargon to duck the issue, or perhaps they delegated this task to an LLM 🤣 I wouldn't be surprised at this point.
(DIR) Post #AvVGDoc6uaA8vtemTg by skobkin@gts.skobk.in
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @untsukiIf the AI dataset has a CC-By input, the output is a derivative work and therefore the attribution should follow.If I learn to draw using your work (not only yous, but yours ALSO), should my work be considered derivative of yours?they cannot define a style that is not connected to a clear input fileEh... no? Each input file only slightly affects the resulting weights. It's somewhat similar to how humans learn to do things based on other's work.You can't distinctly say whose works affected the result of the "AI"-generated image. You can guess, but you can't say for sure. Well, people like to say with confidence things they don't understand, but if we trying to keep the logical discourse, than it's much more difficult.
(DIR) Post #AvVGDp94w0XAa956rg by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@skobkin @untsuki You are human, your brain will only learn what you like. What you care, yes, it's a privilege you have over a machine to learn a process from source, forget the source, and make it your own. A machine doesn't have this privilege.
(DIR) Post #AvVHBsm8ZEv1DOzN7w by alxlg@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drikanis @davidrevoy @creativecommons Yeah, what we need is a way to prove that a model was trained against an author's work
(DIR) Post #AvVHBtLaRRH6zLZgNk by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@alxlg @drikanis @creativecommons https://haveibeentrained.com does a pretty good work at listing the images in the huge popular datasets. Got 11 pages for "pepper carrot" keywords... 😔
(DIR) Post #AvVHBtyw58kaxNz6iO by Em0nM4stodon@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @alxlg @drikanis @creativecommons This exploitation of artists from AI corporations makes me so angry 🤬
(DIR) Post #AvVOxbkjrLFU032U1g by Thad@brontosin.space
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I'm not sure what you mean by enforcing their licenses? They can only enforce their licenses on works they own; they don't have any right to enforce anyone else's copyrights, even if they wrote the license the work is published under.
(DIR) Post #AvVPG1eWIspZXSudsm by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Thad Well, I'm sure they own a couple of things that AI could replicate, such as their own CC logos or pictures on their blog. They could use their legal expertise to conduct an exemplary trial, win it, and then set a legal precedent that would enable many other CC artists to follow in their footsteps.
(DIR) Post #AvVPk9GgYNhLqU7z4i by unknownpseudoartist@musician.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons that's... sad. I totally support free culture and I love initiatives CC were doing for like 2 decades. Nowadays I release my original music as CC BY-SA and in the early 2010s I was also involved in totally different projects involving CC music. I might be totally wrong, but my impression is that things are pretty different and now most of the projects that used to advocate that strong for free culture are moving too close to AI bullshit.
(DIR) Post #AvVQ0X6tg1YeQLMVsG by fraggle@social.coop
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons why would we believe they'd respect this when they don't even respect robots.txt
(DIR) Post #AvVeMmZMHPEA6AB6iu by bkuhn@floss.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
This is yet another example of how Creative Commons has – since its inception by Larry Lessig – always designed policy from a libertarian sense of regulatory minimalism.I'm not an expert on any area of creativity other than software, but I believe a strong regulatory regime that holds Big Tech accountable is paramount.“Moving fast and breaking things” should not be a default for policy makers who care about individual creators.Cf: CC-BY-SA isn't an actual copyleft.Cc: @creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvViLYHeJ83PJrZ0IC by km6ecc@mastodon.radio
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons I wonder how they could protect existing licenses against AI crawling when said existing licenses don't say anything about that? I think that is why these new licenses were created? No? We need Congress to act to extend copyright protections here. And I wish they would. In the mean time I am grateful to creative commons for trying here. They didn't deserve a hand bite here.
(DIR) Post #AvVpciNqhzUDFJavRY by NafiTheBear@snaggletooth.life
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoyI upvoted this issue on their github maybe if helps if enough people are doing this: https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/issues/14 @creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvVqnQsYEOcU5yd6AK by fuzzylynx
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ms_zwiebel @creativecommons Unfortunately, there is no mention of a 'no AI' rule...well… there are such mentions, if I understood correctly. though ai restrictions apply not in license/signal itself, but in headers (robots.txt and HTTP headers). I mean, ai=n and genai=n in Content-Usage:. but I agree that headers do not have any legal effect, so can be ignored (as a matter of fact now).
(DIR) Post #AvW7LzhYrklLCzzWxE by emilyenco@todon.nl
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons Wow, this is such a bad decision.
(DIR) Post #AvWEZZW1im6HjA19do by johnnythan@tuebingen.network
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons I am just adding a hashtag here, to make this findable: #CCSignals
(DIR) Post #AvWGKfWxH7tRwmTPAO by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ms_zwiebel @creativecommons Yes, I'm curious to see how this draft will evolve. Hopefully they'll realise that a NOAI tag would be a welcome addition to the BY/SA/NC/ND family. But we can let them know this, can't we? 🙂
(DIR) Post #AvWNtJZlaqi1fdFvX6 by aaron@social.caskey-demaret.se
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons At least the github issues page is somewhat heartening...https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/issues
(DIR) Post #AvWQyJVdZHiOm4OqB6 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 1 repeats
@creativecommons Psss! After reading all those comments here, I just had to channel my inner artist. So, here’s my new logo for you; because clearly, you need all the help you can get in your new mission. You're welcome! 😂
(DIR) Post #AvWRhf881rkerT1lwG by oblomov@sociale.network
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I like that, mind if I add it to my article here https://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/ai-signal/ when it's published online? 8-D@creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvWS6OZ4kvBkiyQRH6 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@oblomov Thank you and sure! Feel free to reuse it. I can't apply a CC license to it because the CC logo is trademarked, but let's say it's for 'fair use' and only on a non commercial and humorous purposes. 😉
(DIR) Post #AvWSJgo8Eyq34Ho68u by danslerush@floss.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy Voire Creative Crawling :awesome:
(DIR) Post #AvWSNC3CXIpWprWhG4 by bretcarmichael@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons Unfortunately for artists, it looks like AI scraping for model training will be a legally allowed practice in the context of fair use, regardless of license. Protecting your work will need to be a technical effort. For your own site, you can put it behind Cloudflare. It has free tools that block scrapers.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors
(DIR) Post #AvWSPs8b1pmPwfKLiK by oblomov@sociale.network
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy oh definitely, satire *is* one of the allowed fair uses 8-)
(DIR) Post #AvWSo4MdDsHSoZQjqK by leah@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy "building a more equitable, sustainable AI ecosystem rooted in shared benefits" Shared benefits? LOL. I don't want to share anything with fascist, world burning billionaires and their dream machines.I don't see why we need extra signals and I don't see how it would help if their bots circumvent any measures and contracts we had for ages. The ones who have to change are not we who want to share and value an open internet, its them who must change! @creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvWVazVWGgcXql2ie0 by jollysea@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy They have a forum on github: https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/discussions Would be cool if more people commented there, so they can't just ignore "a few people on mastodon".
(DIR) Post #AvWYOW3AGPkUsRWUfg by StarkRG@myside-yourside.net
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @creativecommons While you're at it, make the attribution limited to only those sources used to produce a given output, not all the sources used to train it. That is pretty much impossible to do, of course, so should practically kill the whole thing off.
(DIR) Post #AvWahdUb16sBMzbBoG by serge@babka.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoyI don't want to "debate", I want to understand. I think/worry there are important issues going on beneath the surface of this discussion that I worry are being channeled through "Do you love big corporate AI or not?"These questions are things like:1. What do you see is the purpose and role of Public Domain?2. What do you see as the boundaries of Freedom 0?3. What is the role of attribution in this discussion?4. What is the role of labeling generally here, eg would an "AI" label help?5. What is the role of the license of the AI model? Would you feel more comfortable with a Free model ingesting your work than a proprietary model?6. What options do you feel CC had in this? You feel they should have incremented their licenses with this new restriction under the "or newer" clause?7. What is impersonation vs copying an art style?Where can people who care about Free Culture discuss these and similar topics?@creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvWahe8IdUdFM8AthA by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@serge @creativecommons So many interesting questions, but I'm limited to 500 characters here on my instance (and I'm also limited by my 'french artist's brain' 🤣).Ping @doctormo , who is also interested in creating a discussion about the Free Culture Challenge in the era of AI.
(DIR) Post #AvWbbue8QUbcmvtZZY by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jollysea Thank you for linking it here. Yes, I read it yesterday and added my +1 to many threads.However, I don't expect them to change their minds or publish something about coming back on what they wrote. Creative Commons relies mainly on subsidies, so if they move in this direction, it's probably to follow the money. I'm sure they'll invent a new ethics policy to justify this and demonise anyone who opposes their plans...
(DIR) Post #AvWbmj3TrWyy1YuH68 by elfi@pixie.town
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons@mastodon.social I released works under the CC to allow them to be remixed by people, not corporate machines
(DIR) Post #AvWbmjnv4s84LadMTw by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elfi Exactly. 💜
(DIR) Post #AvWbtUmfJx5Xn2GmCO by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danslerush Oh, celle-ci est bien aussi! 😆
(DIR) Post #AvWcfDA09FLZ1zwBFI by doctormo@floss.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons Nice one! My own thughts went more towards how CC Signals sounds like CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) that bullshit tech that governments love because it allows them to burn things.
(DIR) Post #AvWd3ZeMBSqNjPkkCW by 4c31@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they update their current licenses, you will have to relicense everything anyway.
(DIR) Post #AvWdK8HVC1mtlvxUf2 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@doctormo @serge @creativecommons Right. 👍
(DIR) Post #AvWeUOS21q9ElvLA3M by serge@babka.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy When I was at QuestionCopyright.org, they had an idea that I think never got the right level of endorsement. The idea was called the Creator Mark, and the way it would work is that it would let anyone produce a work, even for profit, under a very Free license, but then if you wanted to support the artist, only when the artist agreed, they'd be able to use the Creator Mark.For example, let's say that I wanted to make a book of P&C. Nothing stops me from doing so.But if my neighbor wants to make the same book, he'd come to you and say "I'll give you 25% of the profits", you agree, and then he can use the "Creator Mark" to show that if you buy from him (vs me), it supports you.I wonder if so much of the issue with "AI" isn't "AI", but other issues you raised such as (your word) "plagiarism". Is it someone pretending the work is yours? Can we use attribution to address that? Should AI be required to attribute itself in the output? etc.
(DIR) Post #AvWeUOzM1wnqRGvlzc by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@serge As you know, it's not an issue with LLMs, AI or the technique itself (src: even before the AI boom https://www.davidrevoy.com/article642/ , or more recently, Krita's and GMIC's own neural network experimentation on a small ethic dataset with consent).I have more of a problem with the abuse of the 'fair use', the impossibility of expressing a non-consenting opinion, and how my work, which has been crawled, contributes to something that infringes my moral and political beliefs (and threaten my own job).
(DIR) Post #AvWfVPh0zubWrnOnKq by f4grx@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@leah @davidrevoy @creativecommons yep what we want is just *less tigers eating faces* not more sharing with the tigers eating faces party.
(DIR) Post #AvWfVQjX82DG5taJto by vansice@infosec.exchange
0 likes, 0 repeats
@f4grx @leah @davidrevoy Today sounds like an excellent time to bring up Nightshade.https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/whatis.html#AI #creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvWfVRDJLK23aFW6JU by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vansice @f4grx @leah Not FLOSS + not for Linux = no thanks. Also, it is not known to be efficient enough. Attempts by other teams to replicate the protection on trained dataset were ineffective. Simply scaling down or filtering the picture would break the protection. It's a shame.But it looks like they are building up a strong supporter base, using the authority artists figure bias to gain credibility. As soon as they make it commercial, they will make a lot of profit for sure...
(DIR) Post #AvWg04aLWboKNbtoMi by serge@babka.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I know, that's why I'm wondering what CC could have done differently to not bring up your ire! :)The issue of consent models is a key component for sure. One thing that I see as a core issue here is the idea of "default yes" or "default no".It sounds like you would have preferred CC take a "default no" position regarding AI use, and CC's position is "This is already allowed so in order to make it not allowed, we must be explicit"
(DIR) Post #AvWg056xZLtm0l9rCS by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@serge Yes...
(DIR) Post #AvWggGhuqUFO8dYnM8 by BetaRays@p.changeme.fr.eu.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy Wait, what does a language model have to do with Krita? Do you have a link with more information about this?
(DIR) Post #AvWghsz41HNl8mLty4 by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BetaRays Sure, the experimentation was fully transparent https://krita.org/en/posts/2024/fast_sketch_plugin/ , and on the forum https://krita-artists.org/t/introducing-a-new-project-fast-line-art/94265 I was around to help (giving feedback, sometime) Tiar, the sole developer on this project, with her progress. Many artists on the forum provided a selection of artwork, including sketches and corresponding line art, under an ethical licence to create a dataset that only Krita could use to train this 'filter on steroids' experiment.
(DIR) Post #AvWgs1VjAiemTwSr4K by f4grx@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @vansice @leah not to mzntion they could also render it less/not effective and we wouldnt know. Nope nope nope!
(DIR) Post #AvWh3vydZWHwnJfMae by f4grx@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @vansice @leah oooofff it stinks! https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1al1utj/what_happened_to_nightshades_open_source_plans/
(DIR) Post #AvWhFuvpHgW91l46rY by BetaRays@p.changeme.fr.eu.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy Ah, I see, but that’s not a language model then. I was a bit scared there 😅
(DIR) Post #AvWhFyGqry7PNpvRYG by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BetaRays Sure, I sometimes use LLM for anything that has been trained on a dataset, even images. My bad, sorry. I should have used 'neural networks'. I'll make a quick edit to the footer of this toot. Thank you for spotting it!
(DIR) Post #AvWiR2mMY2yGVNVZaa by serge@babka.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I genuinely don't think they could have done this legally with confidence that it would have worked in court.
(DIR) Post #AvWiR3SY1CiOcDFGLI by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@serge Yes, maybe they're waiting for a precedent-setting court case, probably involving major copyright issues, before trying anything with a CC licence.A big trial like the recent one where Disney and Universal are suing AI firm Midjourney¹ might unlock many things if they win.How ironic this is! I'm now rooting for a Disney intellectual property case. 🙃 (¹) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
(DIR) Post #AvWkZGGwSqwgZvrEmW by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@4c31 Not really, you can still publish under CC By-Sa 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en even if the 4.0 is most up to date now. That's one of the good thing about CC licenses, and Wikipedia, Open Game Art have many versions. When I wrote "I do not want to re-license my hundreds [...]" it was in a meaning that there is nothing that attracts me in benefiting the four new 'CC Signals' licenses proposal ( CR / CR-DC / CR-EC / CR-OP , https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals?tab=readme-ov-file#cc-signals-1 ).
(DIR) Post #AvWksFRxkI77Wx49rs by 4c31@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy I'm sorry if I didn't express myself correctly; English is not my first language. What I meant to say is that if you have CC X and then they launch CC Y, you would need to relicense if you want to use CC Y. However, with your clarification, I now understand what you mean.
(DIR) Post #AvWkydekezdkLI5xmS by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@4c31 No worry, I'm on the same boat (French here), and it is not the first time that I miss the nuances in a discussion, especially on a complex topic like license. Thank you for the clarification too!
(DIR) Post #AvWsQYveWsx5T5GLiK by sgued@pouet.chapril.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons given that a US judge just ruled that train a model on top of books is fair use what do you expect creative commons to be able to do to fight against that?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr00enzyoThe battle may not be lost in other jurisdiction but most AI companies are american so I don't really see what can be done.
(DIR) Post #AvWvXWxQYbAfFA6hV2 by leah@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @vansice @f4grx and also again: I don't want to do the work because others ignore the social contract.
(DIR) Post #AvX0HY9Qqp7u5CvBWy by stk@chaos.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab while that sounds reasonable at first glance, it is questionable whether the licenses as they are now are even able to exclude using works that are CC licensed under current copyright legislation. CC has said so a number of times in posts spanning the last four years. Any “NOAI” license would furthermore not only apply to TDM for genAI training, but probably also for mechanisms that are meant to build, e.g. knowledge graphs based on the source material.
(DIR) Post #AvX1Rm1SETUhxDd2nY by lyonsinbeta@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons 🔥
(DIR) Post #AvX5hZ7eMVIyOZJQbA by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@prinlu that is still to be found out.AI does not *add* copyright to content, but the copyright of the sources may survive.@davidrevoy @creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvX5hZtrTFryo5rvkG by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @prinlu @creativecommons Yes, and also you might accidentally get an AI output that is a blatant plagiarism without knowing it. You can't therefore be sure your output is public domain. Eg. if someone ask the AI to generate a warrior with a big sword in dark fantasy, and the AI generate Guts (Berserk). If you never see this manga and use the character as your concept-art for your video game project thinking it's public domain, you might run into big trouble with your final game.
(DIR) Post #AvX6ZzVkSvLxsMXJaa by nachof@mastodon.uy
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoyI don't think we need any new @creativecommons licenses, the existing ones should be enough. We just want them to be respected. CC-BY means that if your LLM outputs something based on my stuff, I want to be credited.CC-SA means if your LLM uses my stuff, the model needs to be shared.CC-NC means if your LLM uses my stuff, you can't charge for using your LLM.The meaning of CC licenses is clear, we don't need new shit.
(DIR) Post #AvX9pXdy8wpjwUUKHY by prinlu@0x.trans.fail
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @creativecommons hmmm..."Under current law, content produced entirely by AI immediately enters the public domain, allowing unrestricted commercial use. Works can be copyrighted if they are authored by a human that provides ‘meaningful input’, and AI is just used as a tool."https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2025/03/20/ai-generated-works-are-public-domain-court-affirms/
(DIR) Post #AvX9pYrTcDETifocyW by ArneBab@rollenspiel.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@prinlu under current *US* law.Those decisions are being disputed, though.@davidrevoy @creativecommons
(DIR) Post #AvX9pZccmuwk4tsHSq by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArneBab @prinlu @creativecommons I wish it was so simple as claiming that every output is "public domain", but it's more complex, esp. regarding Intellectual Property.Eg. The Terminator picture with a guitar generated (in your link) is clearly reusing the Terminator Intellectual Property. It's an accumulation of elements: the glasses, the face, body, the jacket... If you try to make a business with selling this picture, the copyright owner (StudioCanal) might sue you and win easily.
(DIR) Post #AvXCA3mcYhd5JzRkjA by prinlu@0x.trans.fail
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @creativecommons well, in the US that was tried in the courts and the courts said no. it's not me who's claiming that. it's a judiciary precedent.it doesn't mean it makes sense. especially from a more european point of view (or understanding of IP / copyright law), but that's the reality of these artifical (as opposed to natural) laws. we can both agree that AI output is a rip-off of work of many humans and is damaging, but copyright law in US (at least) - as far as I understand - is based on human output/intervention. automatic output from machine learning does not fall under that under that system.it's amazing how copyright law protected content industry from taping onwards, and it now allows this excemption for the big tech. in all cases those with a lot get more, and those with little get nada.again, i don't think it's actually constructive to debate copyright law. it will not protect the artist. it never did.to be fair, even CC was not about protecting the artist, but about protecting the consumer from being a criminal (via help from the artist who slapped the CC on it). ok maybe the ShareAlike clause was a way to ensure enriching the commons in favour of everyone, I guess.
(DIR) Post #AvXCA4UZvGn7WK0rFA by davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@prinlu @ArneBab @creativecommons No: the court refused the author of "A Recent Entrance To Paradise" to be copyrighted. Not a case of a owner fighting for their intellectual properties.The fact "it can't be copyrighted" doesn't mean it cannot be attacked if it degrades the Intellectual property of a brand, or owner, or bring them commercial prejudices. The result of this https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo will answer (on a US law POV) the debate around Intellectual Property usage in AI output...
(DIR) Post #AvY2y0mNCGZA6HTFDs by celephais@openbiblio.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons Well, the articles on the website are really wishy washy and unclear what this all means (LLM generated?).The report however is a bit more clear and and far as i understand it this is not meant to be a new licence; more like add ons you can use if you decide to allow reuse for AI. It seems to be comparable with the "Do not track" signal.That's totally fine in my opinion. I don't think though that we will see big effects if the big AI firms just ignore it
(DIR) Post #AvYFW073NcV9KT7Lea by laumapret@toot.lv
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons I'm very upset how little acknowledgement gets the fact that the gen-ai scene currently violates BY clause nonstop. They are not even trying. Not even by giving thousands of pages long list with every source they scrapped.
(DIR) Post #Avl7eJaGb4pBSLiLb6 by guyou@framapiaf.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons A new topic for a new video of @vousavezledroit
(DIR) Post #Aw054K3u3b97ybgXqa by adamsdesk@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @creativecommons It's possible I'm not seeing this perspective. As of right now it all seems counter intuitive. AI in itself violates copyright and those license that already exist. Why would the giants of AI care to all of a sudden agree to operate with respect and grace? Honestly it amazes me there is not wide spread lawsuits world wide against AI deliberate violations and fostering misinformation (confusion). The only positive I see in cc signals is starting the conversation.
(DIR) Post #Aw2nBi6tpRz4t5L7VQ by natsume_shokogami@mastodon.world
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @prinlu @creativecommons Regarding this and your previous point I think that in many cases, we (and also the models as well) may inadvertently create things with features similar to existing copyrighted works, and with enough resources someone can find some character to bootstrap a lawsuit and win, regardless that the other party don't even have any knowledge about that work/characters.
(DIR) Post #Aw2otqU89YHtYaoaFU by natsume_shokogami@mastodon.world
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @prinlu @ArneBab @creativecommons But I heard that in the Midjourney case, they actually knowingly used copyrighted materials as advertisement and such, and don't provide much measures against generating copyrighted characters and works so it's like that they cannot use an excuse of not knowing about that and intentionally violated copyrights
(DIR) Post #Aw2pSG7DMlwUtUVPns by natsume_shokogami@mastodon.world
0 likes, 0 repeats
@davidrevoy @ArneBab @prinlu @creativecommons In the blog post the other commenter provided above, the author knows that they generated Terminator (a copyrighted character) so it's considered some kind of unauthorized reproduction under copyright laws and since they know that it's extremely difficult if impossible to defend. And note that in machine learning and AI, if a model reproduces parts of its training data, it's considered overfitting and pretty much researchers are aiming to avoid that