“I do not claim ownership of the song used in this video.”
Good, because you’d be a lunatic if you did, JazzMasterZero, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are still using someone else’s art in your monetized and shittily-edited dog trick compilation video.
Ugh the ones with the “anti-AI” “licensing”? I honestly don’t know how they expect that to accomplish anything, other than look like a pretentious idiot.
It’s either fair use to train, and the license does nothing, or it is not fair use to train, and the license is extraneous. I explained that to one of them and he said the license isn’t actually supposed to do the “anti-AI” he claims it does. Thus winning the discussion, I guess.
For the US: you already have a copyright on everything you write. Adding CC-BY-NC grants others the right to republish it for non-commercial use, it does not remove any rights at all.
No, that’s not how it works. Commercial use is already prohibited by default. They are adding no new prohibitions. They are allowing use that is not allowed by default.
I agree it’s not great for public discourse, but you are subject to the whims of the third party’s TOS. You can still publish it, but have to make your own site or pick a third party that won’t sell you out.
Or you just accept that the third party is going to do what it’s going to do. Post your discourse, but don’t expect it to be protected.
I agree, that’s how it should work. GitHub as a third party probably had better TOS than most, and would face more uproar if they changed it. But they are not a social media site.
But for regular social media posting, Facebook, Twitter, etc, there is no fighting against their TOS other than abstinence. You can object in writing with one of those footers, but nobody in charge is going to read it or honor it. It will be shoveled into the AI along with everything else. Your only recourse will be an expensive legal fight, and it would be difficult to prove any particular post was in the AI or not. It’s unproven legal ground to say giving a post to an AI for training even qualifies as a “copy” under copyright, or what notification qualifies to exempt your content.
This makes me think of people that add a “copyright” notice at the end of every comment
“I do not claim ownership of the song used in this video.”
Good, because you’d be a lunatic if you did, JazzMasterZero, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are still using someone else’s art in your monetized and shittily-edited dog trick compilation video.
Ugh the ones with the “anti-AI” “licensing”? I honestly don’t know how they expect that to accomplish anything, other than look like a pretentious idiot.
It’s either fair use to train, and the license does nothing, or it is not fair use to train, and the license is extraneous. I explained that to one of them and he said the license isn’t actually supposed to do the “anti-AI” he claims it does. Thus winning the discussion, I guess.
deleted by creator
For the US: you already have a copyright on everything you write. Adding CC-BY-NC grants others the right to republish it for non-commercial use, it does not remove any rights at all.
deleted by creator
No, that’s not how it works. Commercial use is already prohibited by default. They are adding no new prohibitions. They are allowing use that is not allowed by default.
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s why I wrote specifically for the US. Where many prominent AI companies are.
Don’t post on a third party site.
deleted by creator
I agree it’s not great for public discourse, but you are subject to the whims of the third party’s TOS. You can still publish it, but have to make your own site or pick a third party that won’t sell you out.
Or you just accept that the third party is going to do what it’s going to do. Post your discourse, but don’t expect it to be protected.
deleted by creator
I agree, that’s how it should work. GitHub as a third party probably had better TOS than most, and would face more uproar if they changed it. But they are not a social media site.
But for regular social media posting, Facebook, Twitter, etc, there is no fighting against their TOS other than abstinence. You can object in writing with one of those footers, but nobody in charge is going to read it or honor it. It will be shoveled into the AI along with everything else. Your only recourse will be an expensive legal fight, and it would be difficult to prove any particular post was in the AI or not. It’s unproven legal ground to say giving a post to an AI for training even qualifies as a “copy” under copyright, or what notification qualifies to exempt your content.
A footnote isn’t going to stop anyone from scraping comments. That’s just reality.
Art is mine do not steal!