4 ms·

Twitter thread from the author of the original algorithm: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/10552856404

Twitter thread from the author of the original algorithm: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 (worth reading the whole thread, the art collective reply) GitHub link: https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-dcgan https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-dcgan The README was last edited 6 months ago and contains the bolded text: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you have any questions email me before doing anything."

phaedrus 8y ago
Reminds me of Infiniminer vs Minecraft, or GNU vs Linux. Or, especially, the Box2D creator asking Rovio to credit Box2D in Angry Birds. (Did they ever do so?) It sounds like Obvious at least attempted to give credit, but were ignored by the media. https://www.geek.com/games/box2d-creator-asks-rovio-for-angry-birds-credit-at-gdc-1321779/ https://www.geek.com/games/box2d-creator-asks-rovio-for-angr...
crooked-v 8y ago
Licenses aren't retroactive. If you don't want people making money off your stuff (yes, even with direct copy-and-pastes), use CC-BY-NC or similar, not the BSD License.
blotter_paper 8y ago
I feel like this screencap posted by Obvious was the most illuminating part of that twitstorm: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqVdWJSW4AAOtXD?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqVdWJSW4AAOtXD?format=jpg
- spongepoc 8y ago
  If Obvious hadn't been successful with their goals, Robbie would not (and did not) care a bit that his work was being used. It only became contentious when they were able to raise a lot of money. It's funny.
  - ablation 8y ago
    Well, obviously. Robbie said in his Github readme: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you have any questions email me before doing anything."
    - algorias 8y ago
      I feel for the guy, but keep in mind: just putting some text in your readme does not create a legally binding contract.
- sitkack 8y ago
  The truth comes in as a quick afterthought, "and of course to finance our research on art and ML". The whole discussion is meant to elicit "a pass". Dishonest.
rococode 8y ago
Oh gosh, he even links an issue where one of the guys who sold the painting (Hugo Caselles-Dupre, hence the username Caselles) literally asks for help setting up. So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry, might take longer". Hugo's response? > "Ok, really disappointed. Could you at least provide the code for the 128x128 Gan in Keras ?" He's literally sitting there for months pushing for poor Robbie to do the free work for him so that he can try to profit from it. Maybe they really did make a lot of changes to the model. But from the conversation in that issue thread and the striking similarities between the painting and the other ones that Robbie had made over a year ago, it doesn't feel likely to me that that's the case. Hopefully some justice will come out of this situation. As an aside, according to his bio Robbie's only 19 (and already doing this level of research!). Sad to see younger researchers being taken advantage of like this. https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/issues/3#event-1405431136 https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/issues/3#event-140...
- spongepoc 8y ago
  It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat 'own' the DCGAN NN architecture now?
  - ReverseCold 8y ago
    > If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem. Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > In fact, making your code free for everyone to use probably is hurting the web, It's the main reason there is a widely used public web rather than it, if it succeeded at all, being another academic niche tool alongside gopher.
booleandilemma 8y ago
I guess open sourcing things is less fun when someone profits off your work. DrBeef seems to have learned this the hard way.
eganist 8y ago
Interesting. Considering the readme is the first thing the person sees on the github link and nothing about the license itself precludes other contracts, could the bolded text in this context be considered a verbal contract? Or at least enforceable as such? Edit: Actually, there was a change to the license surrounding pre-trained models and sales back in June, so it's even baked into an obvious contract. A lot of the licensing conversation here is somewhat mooted by this. https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENS...
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  Obvious references "the collection", which presumably includes the piece auctioned at Christies, in a DM to Robbie in April, before that clause was added: https://twitter.com/obv_ious/status/1055352403837497344 https://twitter.com/obv_ious/status/1055352403837497344
tomcam 8y ago
The interesting thing is that you cannot copyright computer-generated images.

phaedrus 8y ago

Reminds me of Infiniminer vs Minecraft, or GNU vs Linux. Or, especially, the Box2D creator asking Rovio to credit Box2D in Angry Birds. (Did they ever do so?) It sounds like Obvious at least attempted to give credit, but were ignored by the media. https://www.geek.com/games/box2d-creator-asks-rovio-for-angry-birds-credit-at-gdc-1321779/ https://www.geek.com/games/box2d-creator-asks-rovio-for-angr...

crooked-v 8y ago

Licenses aren't retroactive. If you don't want people making money off your stuff (yes, even with direct copy-and-pastes), use CC-BY-NC or similar, not the BSD License.

blotter_paper 8y ago

I feel like this screencap posted by Obvious was the most illuminating part of that twitstorm: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqVdWJSW4AAOtXD?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqVdWJSW4AAOtXD?format=jpg

spongepoc 8y ago
If Obvious hadn't been successful with their goals, Robbie would not (and did not) care a bit that his work was being used. It only became contentious when they were able to raise a lot of money. It's funny.
- ablation 8y ago
  Well, obviously. Robbie said in his Github readme: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you have any questions email me before doing anything."
  - algorias 8y ago
    I feel for the guy, but keep in mind: just putting some text in your readme does not create a legally binding contract.
sitkack 8y ago
The truth comes in as a quick afterthought, "and of course to finance our research on art and ML". The whole discussion is meant to elicit "a pass". Dishonest.

rococode 8y ago

Oh gosh, he even links an issue where one of the guys who sold the painting (Hugo Caselles-Dupre, hence the username Caselles) literally asks for help setting up. So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry, might take longer". Hugo's response? > "Ok, really disappointed. Could you at least provide the code for the 128x128 Gan in Keras ?" He's literally sitting there for months pushing for poor Robbie to do the free work for him so that he can try to profit from it. Maybe they really did make a lot of changes to the model. But from the conversation in that issue thread and the striking similarities between the painting and the other ones that Robbie had made over a year ago, it doesn't feel likely to me that that's the case. Hopefully some justice will come out of this situation. As an aside, according to his bio Robbie's only 19 (and already doing this level of research!). Sad to see younger researchers being taken advantage of like this. https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/issues/3#event-1405431136 https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/issues/3#event-140...

spongepoc 8y ago
It's hard to see where anyone is being 'taken advantage' of here. If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. This is like if Tim Berners Lee were mad that Google 'stole' his internet and made a lot of money off it. Also the DCGAN architecture is from Chintala et al, and that itself is based on work by Goodfellow et al. Where does this end? Does Robbie Barrat 'own' the DCGAN NN architecture now?
- ReverseCold 8y ago
  > If you put your code on github with an open license, you are letting people to have their way with it. And enough people don't understand this for it to be a problem. Edit: Removed bad phrasing.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > In fact, making your code free for everyone to use probably is hurting the web, It's the main reason there is a widely used public web rather than it, if it succeeded at all, being another academic niche tool alongside gopher.

booleandilemma 8y ago

I guess open sourcing things is less fun when someone profits off your work. DrBeef seems to have learned this the hard way.

eganist 8y ago

Interesting. Considering the readme is the first thing the person sees on the github link and nothing about the license itself precludes other contracts, could the bolded text in this context be considered a verbal contract? Or at least enforceable as such? Edit: Actually, there was a change to the license surrounding pre-trained models and sales back in June, so it's even baked into an obvious contract. A lot of the licensing conversation here is somewhat mooted by this. https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENS...

tlrobinson 8y ago
Obvious references "the collection", which presumably includes the piece auctioned at Christies, in a DM to Robbie in April, before that clause was added: https://twitter.com/obv_ious/status/1055352403837497344 https://twitter.com/obv_ious/status/1055352403837497344

tomcam 8y ago

The interesting thing is that you cannot copyright computer-generated images.