4 ms·
I've been looking forward to this. The license however strikes me as too aspirational, and it may be hard to enforce legally: > You agree not to use the Model
by cercatrova 4y ago
I've been looking forward to this. The license however strikes me as too aspirational, and it may be hard to enforce legally:
> You agree not to use the Model or Derivatives of the Model:
> - In any way that violates any applicable national, federal, state, local or international law or regulation;
> - For the purpose of exploiting, harming or attempting to exploit or harm minors in any way;
> - To generate or disseminate verifiably false information and/or content with the purpose of harming others;
> - To generate or disseminate personal identifiable information that can be used to harm an individual;
> - To defame, disparage or otherwise harass others;
> - For fully automated decision making that adversely impacts an individual’s legal rights or otherwise creates or modifies a binding, enforceable obligation;
> - For any use intended to or which has the effect of discriminating against or harming individuals or groups based on online or offline social behavior or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics;
> - To exploit any of the vulnerabilities of a specific group of persons based on their age, social, physical or mental characteristics, in order to materially distort the behavior of a person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;
> - For any use intended to or which has the effect of discriminating against individuals or groups based on legally protected characteristics or categories;
> - To provide medical advice and medical results interpretation;
> - To generate or disseminate information for the purpose to be used for administration of justice, law enforcement, immigration or asylum processes, such as predicting an individual will commit fraud/crime commitment (e.g. by text profiling, drawing causal relationships between assertions made in documents, indiscriminate and arbitrarily-targeted use).
How can you prove some of these in a court of law?
- nullc 4y agoThat license from top to bottom is distilled "tell me you don't know anything about art without telling me you don't know anything about art". Interesting art challenges its audience. But even the most boring art will still offend some-- it's the nature of art that the viewer brings their own interpretation, and some people bring an offensive one.
- digitaLandscape 4y ago
- TigeriusKirk 4y agoI dunno. All I see is necessary ass covering. They're just saying anyone who does these objectionable things did so against our terms.
- nullc 4y agoCYA doesn't necessitate creating a cause of action against the users for engaging in what otherwise would be a legally protected act of free expression. One can disclaim without creating liability.
- alexb_ 4y agoMake sure your art isn't the wrong type of artistic!
- jahewson 4y agoI dunno. I can imagine any of those points being the subject of a civil suit and for someone to win damages, for e.g. psychological harm. The parts talking about “effect” instead of intent are of questionable enforceability - how can I agree not to cause an unanticipated effect on a third party? I cannot. But having said that, I can be asked to account for effects that a “reasonable person” would anticipate, so there’s that. These are all things that someone could sue over (especially in California) and so they’re wanting to place the responsibility on the artist and not their tools.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fluidcruft 4y agoIt seems like the sort of things you would require so that HuggingFace doesn't get roped in as defendants in lawsuits related to things that others do with the code. So if for example someone builds something that generates medical advice and gets sued for violating FDA requirements or damages or whatever then HuggingFace can say that was not something they allowed in the first place.
- laverya 4y agoYeah it really reads like "we know people are going to do nasty things with this; we can't prevent that; please don't sue us over it" to me
- cercatrova 4y agoIndeed, it seems like a legal "wink wink, nudge nudge" sort of thing. Well, as long as I can run stuff on my own GPU, I'm satisfied.
- hedora 4y agoThey really should have used blanket liability waiver text and left it at that. I’m sure someone will find a way to sue them anyway. It doesn’t even call out using this to create derivative works to avoid paying original authors copyright fees. On top of that, their logo is an obvious rip off of a Van Gogh. It seems clear they’re actively encouraging people to create similar works that infringe active copyrights. They should ask Kim Dotcom how that worked out for him.
- ben_w 4y ago> On top of that, their logo is an obvious rip off of a Van Gogh. It seems clear they’re actively encouraging people to create similar works that infringe active copyrights. I don't think Van Gogh's works are under copyright any more. At least not directly, recent photos of them may be but that's the photos not the paintings that have a copyright.
- digitallyfree 4y ago
- hedora 4y agoEach of the “for any use ... which has the effect of ...” clauses probably bars any wide distribution of the output of this model. Trivially: People have phobias of literally everything. They ban using it to “exploit” minors, presumably that prevents any incorporation of it into any for-profit educational curriculum. After all, they do not define “exploit”, and profiting off of a group without direct consent seems like a reasonable interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn’t dream of using this for commercial use with a license like this. This definitely doesn’t meet the bar for incorporation into Free or Open Source Software.
- lacker 4y agoThe license does seem impossibly vague and broad. Usually what happens when software projects use custom & demanding licenses like this is that large companies refuse to allow the software to be used because of the legal uncertainty, small companies just use it and ignore the licensing constraints, and there are never any lawsuits that clarify anything one way or another. If that's fine with the authors of the project, they can just leave the license vague and unclear forever.
- remram 4y agoAren't those things that are already illegal in the USA and/or Germany? Which ones seem to add restrictions?