5 ms·
It strikes me as sad that people's photos have been taken a used to train a technology for a corporate profit. People just wanted to share their wedding photos.
by gardenhedge 4y ago
It strikes me as sad that people's photos have been taken a used to train a technology for a corporate profit. People just wanted to share their wedding photos.
- ironmagma 4y agoIt's no worry, someday that data will be so ubiquitous and well-studied that it won't even be profitable, it will just be trivial to construct or deconstruct any face.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fleddr 4y agoI agree, but why would one share wedding photos using an open license like Creative Commons?
- tomrod 4y agoBecause regulations are generally unknown to folks who don't spend their time solving tech problems. People simply assumed they could share it easily with friends and family.
- fleddr 4y agoThis doesn't match my experience, and I run a photo community myself. You're absolutely right that people are generally fairly clueless about licenses, especially in the amateur domain. And the main implication of that is that they don't bother with it at all and leave it at whatever the default is, which typically is "copyrighted, all rights reserved". Those explicitly tinkering with licenses, which is a purposeful action, tend to actually know (somewhat) what they are doing. Further, if you leave a photo's license to its default, copyrighted, absolutely nothing stops you from sharing it with friends and family. What would happen? You share it with them and then sue yourself? Similarly, somebody you don't even know could use your copyrighted image and post it on social media. Again, nothing happens, as this is widespread behavior and called "fair use", which it legally absolutely isn't. But nobody cares, as nobody will sue over it unless there is a case of vast commercial usage.
- jefftk 4y agoIn this case, because Flickr used to wave hosting fees for people who chose a Creative Commons license.
- JeremyBanks 4y ago[dead]
- sacrosancty 4y agoReplace "corporate profit" with "social good", which is what it generally comes from, and then is it still sad? You seem to imply there's something wrong with corporate profit. We as society want and encourage corporate profit because we want the social good that corporations provide and the profit incentivizes them to do it. Profit is a rough measure of how much good they do for people. Profit is like salary for investors. Salary is fine for doctors and teachers, isn't it? It's also fine for investors which do the useful and difficult job of deciding which companies are doing the most good, then encouraging them to do more of it by investing money.
- mikeiz404 4y agoCorporate profit does not always lead to social good. There are lots of cases, especially when companies scale significantly and over a long enough period of time, where the profit motive leads to a decline in social good which is often seen in the form of negative externalities. > Profit is a rough measure of how much good they do for people. While this is true to a certain degree in many situations it does not capture the distribution of the “good” across people (is “good” given to 100 people equivalent to 100x that “good” enjoyed by one person?) and it does not take into account negative externalities. I’m not saying all profit is bad but I also don’t think, in the current system we have, that profit in and of itself is inherently good. Sometimes profit and social good are aligned and sometimes they are not.
- sacrosancty 4y ago[dead]
- gardenhedge 4y agoAh yes, the "social good" that is literally destroying our planet.
- sowbug 4y agoDo ad blockers also make you sad?