4 ms·
>If artists didn't want their art to be used (for a variety of purposes!) they shouldn't have made it freely available on the internet. There’s all sorts of so
by Jevon23 4y ago
>If artists didn't want their art to be used (for a variety of purposes!) they shouldn't have made it freely available on the internet.
There’s all sorts of software and source code freely available online, but you can’t do whatever you want with it because of the license agreement it’s released under?
>Maybe art websites will add checkboxes to the effect of "don't use this art to train AI models" to submission forms. That won't be enforceable in court (unless the law changes), and it will only deter completely scrupulous actors much like robots.txt.
How is this any different from software license agreements, or terms of service agreements on websites? People have to check boxes all the time saying they will or won’t do certain things. And those terms are definitely enforceable (in principle).
- CuriouslyC 4y agoYou are correct that this will eventually be a licensing issue, with art websites being updated to try to prevent people from downloading with the intent to train models. That approach will probably fail as EULAs have been beaten down in courts repeatedly. There's also a loophole there, in that if you downloaded the images from a pirate site, you aren't bound by the EULA, and if you didn't upload data to others you aren't committing copyright infringement.