Every hour since dawn, there has been a massacre An urgent call to donate blood.
An urgent call to provide hospital beds for the wounded.An urgent call to bring in medical supplies and infant formula.An urgent call to deliver fuel to hospital
An urgent call do not forget Gaza.
Help please 🙏
gofund.me/d01c555b
David Revoy
in reply to David Revoy • • •Ray Of Sunlight
in reply to David Revoy • • •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.
F4GRX Sébastien
in reply to David Revoy • • •lamb 🐑
in reply to David Revoy • • •Adam
in reply to David Revoy • • •Drikanis
in reply to David Revoy • • •eobet
in reply to David Revoy • • •you can use this NOAI license until someone makes a better one 😇
eobet.com/fun/noai/
BY-NOAI-NC-NFC-NM-SA
eobet.comArne Babenhauserheide
in reply to David Revoy • • •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
Damien Goutte-Gattat
in reply to David Revoy • • •@David Revoy This thing, along with the IETF draft that it is built upon, seems like a perfect excuse for the genAI leeches to keep sucking whatever they want.
“Well, of course we ingested your stuff in our model. If you didn’t want us to do that, all you had to do was to configure your webserver to return a
Content-Usage: ai=n
header; by not doing so, you in fact consented to us doing whatever we want.(And if you did configure your webserver to return that header, tough luck, we‘ll do whatever we want anyway, because what are you going to do, sue us?)”
Carl Schwan
in reply to David Revoy • • •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😬
creativecommons.org/ai-and-the…
CC Signals Implementation - Creative Commons
Creative CommonsJenny
in reply to David Revoy • • •David Benqué
in reply to David Revoy • • •Glowing Cat of the Nuclear Wastelands
in reply to David Revoy • • •The fact that there isn't a "no AI use" option is first and foremost telling about who this is for. It's an after the fact permission of the abuse that these companies have already subjected us all to.
They've been abusing both shared resources (the environment), and the resources of others (our intellectual property, and the web servers we host our stuff on), and by extension have violated the social contract.
And even if there was a no AI option with these new rules for Creative Commons, the past behavior of these companies has made it crystal clear that they won't bother respecting it. They pull back when big enough companies push back, but the rest of us can't afford to go after them in court, so they just run right over us like we don't matter.
All this is, is giving them permission after they've already abused the common good will. Doing that will only further build up their sense of entitlement.
Who did you all consult? Just the AI companies, right? No one who actually has looked at the harm these companies are doing, clearly.
@davidrevoy@framapiaf.org
chris huf
in reply to David Revoy • • •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.
Chris Real
in reply to David Revoy • • •The people most affected are the experts here.
We should listen to the creators, and not to those who claim to REPRESENT them, when the creators say they are not being represented.
It's just Occam's Razor in the real world, y'all . . .
Alexey Skobkin
in reply to David Revoy • • •But... 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.
K.N. Brindle (they/them)
in reply to David Revoy • • •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).
Jim Flanagan
in reply to David Revoy • • •Marsh Ray
in reply to David Revoy • • •Looks like they have a wishy-washy page that speaks to some of that.
creativecommons.org/about/lega…
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.
Legal - Creative Commons
Creative Commonspurple 💜
in reply to David Revoy • • •Thad
in reply to David Revoy • • •Unknown Pseudoartist
in reply to David Revoy • • •fraggle
in reply to David Revoy • • •Diotima
in reply to David Revoy • • •"Expanding copyright to control AI training risks stifling innovation and access to knowledge."
Yeah okay sure.
@creativecommons, this is embarrassing.
Bradley M. Kuhn
in reply to David Revoy • • •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
KM6ECC
in reply to David Revoy • • •Nafeon
in reply to David Revoy • • •I upvoted this issue on their github maybe if helps if enough people are doing this: github.com/creativecommons/cc-…
@creativecommons
The goal should be protection, not Ingratiation
steph72 (GitHub)Trash Panda
in reply to David Revoy • • •But it does sound like they sided with the EVIL people, that's for sure.
And if the evil side is the right side for someone that says a lot about that someone.
Loyal
in reply to David Revoy • • •the missing NOAI tag is the reason im sceptical of using a CC license.
I can understand that allowing AI keeps things more open, but it really should be a creattors choice to say no if they do not want to support that industry. I believe that is part of why we want a license to protect work from AI.
Ewen Bell 📸
in reply to David Revoy • • •Emily 🏳️⚧️ (she/her) 🔜 BIJ1 Congress
in reply to David Revoy • • •Johnny Than
in reply to David Revoy • • •Aaron Caskey-Demaret
in reply to David Revoy • • •At least the github issues page is somewhat heartening...
github.com/creativecommons/cc-…
creativecommons/cc-signals
GitHubLeah
in reply to David Revoy • • •"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
SuperDicq
in reply to David Revoy • • •joël
in reply to David Revoy • • •They have a forum on github: github.com/creativecommons/cc-…
Would be cool if more people commented there, so they can't just ignore "a few people on mastodon".
creativecommons cc-signals · Discussions
GitHubLocal moth fairy loves lämp, more at 11
in reply to David Revoy • • •4c31 🐏
in reply to David Revoy • • •Soc Endormiscat (shonk edition)
in reply to David Revoy • • •did you miss the article where they explicitly said that all previously existing CC licenses are NOT compatible with AI training (unless crediting in the training data –and only some of them–, but let's be honest, AI companies would rather kill themselves, so this is virtually a prohibition.)
I don't think this CC Signals license article is actually directed to artists, I think this is a smokescreen to trick AI companies into feeling catered to; by explicitly creating an AI-friendly license they actively impede the AI companies from trying to ever argue that the previous CC derivative licenses were vague enough for AI training or in a "use case too new to be covered by a license" grey-area.
I really can't see how someone could see these two articles side by side and believe that Creative Commons was on anyone's side but the artists who use CC licenses
Jectoons
in reply to David Revoy • • •This is all very confusing and, honestly, a let down. I agree with you that it seems they're just trying to work with llms instead of maybe supporting the community of Cultural Workers that have been using CC licences for years.
This is part of why I believe Free-Culture is just a stepping stone to what sharing Culture should be, and not an end goal. Also why I believe that allowing organizations like Creative Commons to control the narrative on Free-Culture is dangerous.
Perhaps it's time to move to different sets of licences, or to ignore the organization completely and use the licenses as normal. I have often wondered, if Creative Commons ceases to exist, are licenses still valid?
Anywho. @creativecommons , this is stupid.
Soso
in reply to David Revoy • • •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?
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77vr0…
The battle may not be lost in other jurisdiction but most AI companies are american so I don't really see what can be done.
US Judge sides with AI firm Anthropic over copyright issue
Natalie Sherman and Lucy Hooker (BBC News)Nacho
in reply to David Revoy • • •I 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.
Stefan Bartsch
in reply to David Revoy • • •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
Guilhem Bonnefille
in reply to David Revoy • • •Lauma Pret 🕸️
in reply to David Revoy • • •JesseTong
Unknown parent • • •David Revoy
Unknown parent • • •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.
Arne Babenhauserheide
Unknown parent • • •@prinlu under current *US* law.
Those decisions are being disputed, though.
@davidrevoy @creativecommons
JesseTong
Unknown parent • • •David Revoy
Unknown parent • • •@prinlu @ArneBab 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 bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm… will answer (on a US law POV) the debate around Intellectual Property usage in AI output...
Artificial intelligence: Disney and Universal sue Midjourney over copyright
Tom Espiner (BBC News)JesseTong
in reply to David Revoy • • •