4 ms·

The art that was trained on was all Creative Commons apparently, so perhaps artists should understand licenses first before giving their work a permissive licen

The art that was trained on was all Creative Commons apparently, so perhaps artists should understand licenses first before giving their work a permissive license.

teakettle42 4y ago
All CC licenses, other than the “CC0 public domain dedication”, require attribution, but CC themselves have taken what I’d consider to be an ass-backwards position on the matter: > At CC, we believe that, as a matter of copyright law, the use of works to train AI should be considered non-infringing by default, assuming that access to the copyright works was lawful at the point of input. https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-content-be-used-to-train-ai-it-depends/ https://creativecommons.org/2021/03/04/should-cc-licensed-co...
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >backwards position It's not backwards. It's the same as if a human artist studied it. Backwards would be thinking that any creative work you make is a derivative work of many creative works that you've seen in the past which you aren't copying from.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > It's the same as if a human artist studied it. It’s not a human artist, and it can only regurgitate mash-ups of work stolen from others.
egypturnash 4y ago
Where is this said? I'm looking at the collection of artists this site is happily offering to rip off (https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo/1 https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo...) and there's a lot of people with long careers making copyrighted work. I really can't imagine finding a ton of CC work by Bernie Wrightson or Wayne Barlowe or Brom or Junji Ito, for instance.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]