> I'll tolerate the usage of software that received AI contributions. I myself paint and create daily on a Linux operating system, a project that accepted AI code contributions.
“Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.
>> "The Creative Commons licenses I used since more than a decade (CC By for Pepper&Carrot, and CC By-Sa for MiniFantasyTheater) miss an option: the possibility to prohibit AI generated derivation."
Did they miss it, or did you misunderstand what "commons" means? AI complicates the goal a bit, but no, I don't think they missed anything. Here's what CC had to say on the topic so far: https://creativecommons.org/ai-and-the-commons/
>> "AI is built on the commons. To serve the public interest, AI must help grow, not diminish, the commons, ensuring benefits are widely shared. We need a new social contract, anchored in reciprocity and a shared commitment to the commons."
Which is a great idea. Putting up more barriers doesn't seem compatible with that. All you've done is pre-emptively cordon off your work from the commons based on the tools people use.
It’s good to have these addendums. They have no teeth at the moment, but if and when some jurisdiction, somewhere gets pissed off enough to start prosecuting AI companies, showing that a) your license explicitly prohibits AI use, and b) AI is “intelligent” enough to understand this text, but ignores it anyway, will make it much easier to participate in lawsuits.
> I'll soon write a tiny "AI derivation prohibited" side by side to my Creative Commons licenses, and everywhere I can. I'll start this update from today, and backport it to previous artworks and comics, but it might take time.
these licenses are irrevocable and you can't just "backport" additional restrictions
uh, also writing it next to cc sounds like a dumb idea, as it makes it a bit of a legal hell? like as long as its not an explicit exception to the cc license like llvm does with their license this seems pretty ambiguous what license really applies here
I wasted many minutes on this, but I'm pretty sure that yes, he can. Creative commons is just a boilerplate to get you started in an actual litigation, not itself binding (especially not their FAQ page). If he only displays his comics with these captions, anyone who ignores them will now very likely be liable under french law.
AFAICT the only thing that could possibly change this is if he explicitly passed his "moral rights" to another person, but obviously that doesn't apply here. CC-BY 4.0 contains this clause, but I don't think you can just be made to "agree to waive" these rights, as "to the extent possible" hints at:
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.
Copyright was created to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The means to that are arbitrary and we have chosen a bad system that creates dictators who can create complex rules that diminish our cultural commons.
Ok I'm here for the same arguing as y'all are (namely: seems both unenforceable and completely against the FLOSS ethos, and adding a clause by hand is more like a sign than a rule in practice) but that's all less interesting than the 'moral rights' he bases this all on philosophically -- or, in less dramatic terms, non-economic intellectual property rights. These would be completely separate from any "license" changes, but it's still interesting.
For one thing, the United States has it but it only applies to the kinds of things a 6y/o says when asked "what is art?" which is pretty funny (paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs), and would exclude David's work. I wonder if he's been webcomicing long enough to remember the days when drawing tablets were a violation of the sacred...
For another, "I assert my rights" sounds like some SovCit tomfoolery like we have in the ~Commonwealth, but is indeed a thing! Pretty funny as well, I think.
More relevantly, these 'moral' rights (ugh) seem to... well, I'll just link France's insanely nice statute site: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000... (Article L121-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). The relevant clause is the first:
> L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre.
> ~=> The author has the right to respectful, accurate attribution (both name and role), and the right to respectful treatment of their work (both physically and in spirit).
I wasted a bunch of time on this but in the end it's simple, and explained pretty definitively by a recent case about fine art depicting Tintin: A) characters and vague story elements are indeed covered, and B) the Tintin usage was illegal because it had women in it, which the author explicitly disavowed (which: ???). If David explicitly tells people that AI art makes him mad, that seems to be enough to get the state to punish anyone who uses it.
There are carve-outs for parody and use among a "family circle", but they're superceeded in turn by a clause on the author's "legitimate interests". Unless that has some special french meaning (e.g. only economic?), this is all down to "does a French judge think AI is legitimately hated." Given the vibes I'm getting from the precedents, that seems very, very likely.
(They tried to pass a law once to make that official, but it failed in the EU -- will surely try again soon, with the Pope's support)
TL;DR: David's almost definitely correctly understanding the law here. That's... that's wild. Honestly sucks to know that even my #1 emmigration dream is so thoroughly infested with intellectual property laws :(
The death of copyright won't come from a sudden amputation of existing law, but by millions of tiny cuts made by the multitude of directives, conditions, and riders made by intellectual property megalomaniacs.
Why is this flagged? It's a reasoned statement by a creative person whose artwork has clearly been part of the training data for LLMs, and who is inundated with people sending him AI versions of his own artwork back to him. He provides examples.
Flagging to remove an article from discussion or debate is censorship, regardless of whether the content is palatable to you or not.
When an article is flagged, there should be reasons stated, and the usernames of the accounts that flagged it.
And if the flagging is motivated by attempt to censor, the Internet Points of those accounts should be zeroed.
There should be a mechanism for unflagging, or vouching.
16 comments
[ 0.47 ms ] story [ 10.2 ms ] thread“Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.
Did they miss it, or did you misunderstand what "commons" means? AI complicates the goal a bit, but no, I don't think they missed anything. Here's what CC had to say on the topic so far: https://creativecommons.org/ai-and-the-commons/
>> "AI is built on the commons. To serve the public interest, AI must help grow, not diminish, the commons, ensuring benefits are widely shared. We need a new social contract, anchored in reciprocity and a shared commitment to the commons."
Which is a great idea. Putting up more barriers doesn't seem compatible with that. All you've done is pre-emptively cordon off your work from the commons based on the tools people use.
these licenses are irrevocable and you can't just "backport" additional restrictions
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-the-author-...
AFAICT the only thing that could possibly change this is if he explicitly passed his "moral rights" to another person, but obviously that doesn't apply here. CC-BY 4.0 contains this clause, but I don't think you can just be made to "agree to waive" these rights, as "to the extent possible" hints at:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.enCopyright was fully intended to allow authors to control how their work is used.
Copyright was created to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The means to that are arbitrary and we have chosen a bad system that creates dictators who can create complex rules that diminish our cultural commons.
For one thing, the United States has it but it only applies to the kinds of things a 6y/o says when asked "what is art?" which is pretty funny (paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs), and would exclude David's work. I wonder if he's been webcomicing long enough to remember the days when drawing tablets were a violation of the sacred...
For another, "I assert my rights" sounds like some SovCit tomfoolery like we have in the ~Commonwealth, but is indeed a thing! Pretty funny as well, I think.
More relevantly, these 'moral' rights (ugh) seem to... well, I'll just link France's insanely nice statute site: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000... (Article L121-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). The relevant clause is the first:
I wasted a bunch of time on this but in the end it's simple, and explained pretty definitively by a recent case about fine art depicting Tintin: A) characters and vague story elements are indeed covered, and B) the Tintin usage was illegal because it had women in it, which the author explicitly disavowed (which: ???). If David explicitly tells people that AI art makes him mad, that seems to be enough to get the state to punish anyone who uses it.There are carve-outs for parody and use among a "family circle", but they're superceeded in turn by a clause on the author's "legitimate interests". Unless that has some special french meaning (e.g. only economic?), this is all down to "does a French judge think AI is legitimately hated." Given the vibes I'm getting from the precedents, that seems very, very likely.
(They tried to pass a law once to make that official, but it failed in the EU -- will surely try again soon, with the Pope's support)
TL;DR: David's almost definitely correctly understanding the law here. That's... that's wild. Honestly sucks to know that even my #1 emmigration dream is so thoroughly infested with intellectual property laws :(
Flagging to remove an article from discussion or debate is censorship, regardless of whether the content is palatable to you or not.
When an article is flagged, there should be reasons stated, and the usernames of the accounts that flagged it.
And if the flagging is motivated by attempt to censor, the Internet Points of those accounts should be zeroed.
There should be a mechanism for unflagging, or vouching.