License update: AI derivation prohibited on all my art, lore, stories, comics

lowbloodsugar

> I'll tolerate the usage of software that received AI contributions. I myself paint and create daily on a Linux operating system, a project that accepted AI code contributions. “Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.

voidfunc

Good luck with that...

micromacrofoot

Unfortunately this is as effective as going outside and declaring it to the sky.

archagon

It’s good to have these addendums. They have no teeth at the moment, but if and when some jurisdiction, somewhere gets pissed off enough to start prosecuting AI companies, showing that a) your license explicitly prohibits AI use, and b) AI is “intelligent” enough to understand this text, but ignores it anyway, will make it much easier to participate in lawsuits.

zemlyansky

> I'll soon write a tiny "AI derivation prohibited" side by side to my Creative Commons licenses, and everywhere I can. I'll start this update from today, and backport it to previous artworks and comics, but it might take time. these licenses are irrevocable and you can't just "backport" additional restrictions https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-the-author-...

tumetab1

I might think this is not effective, but I fully agree with an author to state its intent. Copyright was fully intended to allow authors to control how their work is used.

bbor

Ok I'm here for the same arguing as y'all are (namely: seems both unenforceable and completely against the FLOSS ethos, and adding a clause by hand is more like a sign than a rule in practice) but that's all less interesting than the 'moral rights' he bases this all on philosophically -- or, in less dramatic terms, non-economic intellectual property rights. These would be completely separate from any "license" changes, but it's still interesting. For one thing, the United States has it but it only applies to the kinds of things a 6y/o says when asked "what is art?" which is pretty funny (paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs), and would exclude David's work. I wonder if he's been webcomicing long enough to remember the days when drawing tablets were a violation of the sacred... For another, "I assert my rights" sounds like some SovCit tomfoolery like we have in the ~Commonwealth, but is indeed a thing! Pretty funny as well, I think. More relevantly, these 'moral' rights (ugh) seem to... well, I'll just link France's insanely nice statute site: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000... (Article L121-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). The relevant clause is the first: > L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre. > ~=> The author has the right to respectful, accurate attribution (both name and role), and the right to respectful treatment of their work (both physically and in spirit). I wasted a bunch of time on this but in the end it's simple, and explained pretty definitively by a recent case about fine art depicting Tintin: A) characters and vague story elements are indeed covered, and B) the Tintin usage was illegal because it had women in it, which the author explicitly disavowed (which: ???). If David explicitly tells people that AI art makes him mad, that seems to be enough to get the state to punish anyone who uses it. There are carve-outs for parody and use among a "family circle", but they're superceeded in turn by a clause on the author's "legitimate interests". Unless that has some special french meaning (e.g. only economic?), this is all down to "does a French judge think AI is legitimately hated." Given the vibes I'm getting from the precedents, that seems very, very likely. (They tried to pass a law once to make that official, but it failed in the EU -- will surely try again soon, with the Pope's support) TL;DR: David's almost definitely correctly understanding the law here. That's... that's wild. Honestly sucks to know that even my #1 emmigration dream is so thoroughly infested with intellectual property laws :(

joquarky

The death of copyright won't come from a sudden amputation of existing law, but by millions of tiny cuts made by the multitude of directives, conditions, and riders made by intellectual property megalomaniacs.