you can use this NOAI license until someone makes a better one 😇

eobet.com/fun/noai/

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

@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?)”

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

Dive into our early thinking below, then help shape what comes next! We’re looking for your ideas, feedback, and questions on the legal, technical, and social layers of this work.

^{Creative Commons}

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

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 . . .

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.

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).

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.

"Expanding copyright to control AI training risks stifling innovation and access to knowledge."

Yeah okay sure.

@creativecommons, this is embarrassing.

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

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

Problem This whole idea is completely and utterly wrong. Description Inviting AI scrapers to negotiate licensing terms for CC works is like a flock of sheep holding a summit to draft ethical guidel...

^{steph72 (GitHub)}

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.

At least the github issues page is somewhat heartening...

github.com/creativecommons/cc-…

creativecommons/cc-signals

CC signals is a framework for a simple pact between those stewarding data, and those reusing it for AI development. CC signals provide a set of shared ground rules for an AI ecosystem that is mutua...

^GitHub