In theory, a copyleft licence should work. The problem however is a) how are you going to find out and b) how are you going to enforce it?
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
14 points (88.9% liked)
Open Source
30846 readers
131 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So, CC-BY-SA, which would require AI training database to be copyleft...
I don't think the legal protections will be effective to prevent AIs from being trained on your works, because the data sets used to train the models are scraped from art sharing websites and it won't be possible to identify that your art was part of the training set, legally or not. A better way is to use a tool like Glaze, which modifies your artwork so it looks the same to a human viewer but introduces errors when fed to an AI model.
I have no actual answer, but given the very messy state of AI legality right now, I imagine it could be a while before we're even able to define everything well enough to establish a solid legal framework for this sort of thing.
That said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong - this is definitely an important idea for society moving forward.
I mean, is copyright not specifically designed (by the big corporations mind you) to default to not allowing content to be used unless permission is explicitly given by the rights holder? So shouldn't the answer to whether any content can be used is a big NO unless the author or distributor specifically allows it to be used?
There's this thing called fair use .
The usage is clearly limited as can be determined by size of trained materials versus size of models. I would argue the use is transformative enough, after all you got from text/image inputs to effectively a tool that can produce texts and images.
If I write a story too similar to a Disney movie I will get sued, yet this is okay? Wtf
I'm not a copyright lawyer or a regular lawyer or even a well-informed citizen really, so I couldn't really say. Certainly in this case, if a project is under a more permissive license, I imagine the intention could be argued either way as far as AI is concerned.
I worked in data collection for an AI project (in a specialized domain, so no text or picture), and pour lawyer guided us on two things: first, we needed explicit approval to use some data, and second, if someone retracted their approval, we could keep the data as long as we couldn't "trace it back" to that person... I ended up leaving the project.
You might have more luck asking on https://opensource.stackexchange.com/. I'd certainly hope that somebody using data from an AI trained on that image should be required to give attribution or shouldn't be allowed to use it if modification is not allowed.
Big tech are not going to care if you put a license on your photo. You don't have the money to sue them if you were to find out they use your Image. And if "amateurs" use your works you are not going to be able to find / trace who did it.
The best thing to do is to be careful about what you publish for everyone to see, and use a providers focused on privacy for personal uses (proton for example).
I think one of the problems right now is the lack of a proper legal definition of what is AI doing with your material. A human learning how to create original work by reading your work would not be required to cite it. The question is why and how exactly is AI doing something different.
But if a human straight up copies someone else's writing, that's illegal. AI spits out word for word passages from training data all the time.