My simple understanding of the idea is it forces AI companies to have to avoid taking those comments. If they did, they would need to provide attribution to the sources etc.
By default you have complete ownership of all works you create. What that license link is doing is granting an additional license to the comment. (In this case likely the only available license.)
This means that people can choose to use the terms in this license rather than their “default” rights to the work (such as fair use which is which most AI companies are claiming). It can’t take away any of their default privileges.
If they even notice it, they will say that the website TOS is the relevant license.
Eirher way, they will just go ahead and use it. None of us have the resources or perseverance to prove anything and take them to court in a meaningful way.
Adding a restrictive license to it only means as much as you’re willing and able to police it yourself and take others to court and argue that they can not assume the same freedom of use of your comments that they can with the rest of the site.
As an individual, for comments of two sentences each, this is not an option.
As an individual, for comments of two sentences each, this is not an option.
My content is usually more than a sentence or two.
Also, it puts a stake in the ground for any future enforcement done by others than myself if laws change.
Its a low-hanging-fruit way of protecting my content. If it works, great, and if it doesn’t, then I’ll vote for someone else for Congress the next time.
I’ve wasted more time replying on this single conversation/post than I have copy/pasting the link in all of my comments so far.
Yes but the default state is that you have copyright over your posts/comments, and by sending them to your Lemmy server you are giving them some license to at least distribute the content to others (most services specify what license you are giving them in the ToS, which is where they would say that you are licensing them to sell you shit to AI companies). In theory by specifying the CC-SA-NC license or whatever that should be the license unless your Lemmy instance has some ToS terms that specifically say you’re granting additional privileges to someone by posting.
Whether AI companies actually care (they don’t) is a different story, but if eventually they actually have to follow copyright laws like everyone else then it could matter.
The CC requires copyright holders to contact companies that violate the license and give them 30 days to remediate.
I highly doubt:
people who put the CC-BY-NC license in their comment will troll AI bots to see if their specific comments are being used
those same people can prove to the company that their comment was used
the company will actually take them at their word and remove their comments from their training data
even if all of the above are true, can afford an attorney let alone sustain that attorney through the case
even if all of the above are true, prevail in a court of law
I think people adding the license is fine. It’s your comment. Do whatever. I don’t think it’s as harmful as sovereign citizens using their own license plate for “traveling”.
Plus also, it’s also about future legislation, and putting a stake in the ground now. As it is, corporations are fighting each other over their content being used freely to program other corporations AI models, so I’m expecting a lot of lobbying money flying around in Washington just about now.
But finally, just because enforcement might be difficult, doesn’t mean a license can’t still be used.
My simple understanding of the idea is it forces AI companies to have to avoid taking those comments. If they did, they would need to provide attribution to the sources etc.
Time will tell if it works
That’s my understanding as well.
And yes, I can’t force them to be legal and to honor license, but I can do my part, and hope those who are coding over on their side are open source minded, and are willing to honor the license.
Generally speaking, just because someone else may break the law doesn’t mean I can’t use the law to try to protect myself.
AI companies are currently blatantly ignoring copyright. Furthermore, content without a specific license is already protected under copyright, provided they are creative enough for licensing and copyright to make sense.
The question currently being fought in courts is: do AI companies need permission and licenses to train AI on copyrighted content? If so, no creative unlicensed comments will be usable for AI in the first place. If they’re not, these licenses don’t really apply.
However: you, as a random internet person, do get additional rights. You are bound by copyright law, and copyright law says you can’t just take someone else’s movie/picture/meme/poem/book/comment and post is elsewhere. With the CC license, you are able to do so, provided you follow the requirements described in the license.
Certain websites, like StackOverflow, apply these licenses on user generated content by default. Without such a license, copy/pasting from StackOverflow could be a copyright violation in some cases, which it now isn’t!
My simple understanding of the idea is it forces AI companies to have to avoid taking those comments. If they did, they would need to provide attribution to the sources etc.
Time will tell if it works
It doesn’t work.
By default you have complete ownership of all works you create. What that license link is doing is granting an additional license to the comment. (In this case likely the only available license.)
This means that people can choose to use the terms in this license rather than their “default” rights to the work (such as fair use which is which most AI companies are claiming). It can’t take away any of their default privileges.
It won’t. It’s just like the boomers over on Facebook.
If they even notice it, they will say that the website TOS is the relevant license.
Eirher way, they will just go ahead and use it. None of us have the resources or perseverance to prove anything and take them to court in a meaningful way.
Does Lemmy’s TOS state that I do not own the content that I upload to their site?
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
It says nothing, so you have copyright on it.
Adding a restrictive license to it only means as much as you’re willing and able to police it yourself and take others to court and argue that they can not assume the same freedom of use of your comments that they can with the rest of the site.
As an individual, for comments of two sentences each, this is not an option.
My content is usually more than a sentence or two.
Also, it puts a stake in the ground for any future enforcement done by others than myself if laws change.
Its a low-hanging-fruit way of protecting my content. If it works, great, and if it doesn’t, then I’ll vote for someone else for Congress the next time.
I’ve wasted more time replying on this single conversation/post than I have copy/pasting the link in all of my comments so far.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Appreciate your thoughts and responses!
Though we disagree on the effectiveness, I am all in favour of what you are pushing towards.
What is the website ToS for different Lemmy instances, and does it really permit commercial use in AI?
As far as I can tell, they don’t prohibit it. Couldn’t find any mention of it in Lemmy.world TOS
Yes but the default state is that you have copyright over your posts/comments, and by sending them to your Lemmy server you are giving them some license to at least distribute the content to others (most services specify what license you are giving them in the ToS, which is where they would say that you are licensing them to sell you shit to AI companies). In theory by specifying the CC-SA-NC license or whatever that should be the license unless your Lemmy instance has some ToS terms that specifically say you’re granting additional privileges to someone by posting.
Whether AI companies actually care (they don’t) is a different story, but if eventually they actually have to follow copyright laws like everyone else then it could matter.
The CC requires copyright holders to contact companies that violate the license and give them 30 days to remediate.
I highly doubt:
I think people adding the license is fine. It’s your comment. Do whatever. I don’t think it’s as harmful as sovereign citizens using their own license plate for “traveling”.
I’m retired, and have money, so you never know. 😇
Plus also, it’s also about future legislation, and putting a stake in the ground now. As it is, corporations are fighting each other over their content being used freely to program other corporations AI models, so I’m expecting a lot of lobbying money flying around in Washington just about now.
But finally, just because enforcement might be difficult, doesn’t mean a license can’t still be used.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
That’s my understanding as well.
And yes, I can’t force them to be legal and to honor license, but I can do my part, and hope those who are coding over on their side are open source minded, and are willing to honor the license.
Generally speaking, just because someone else may break the law doesn’t mean I can’t use the law to try to protect myself.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
AI companies are currently blatantly ignoring copyright. Furthermore, content without a specific license is already protected under copyright, provided they are creative enough for licensing and copyright to make sense.
The question currently being fought in courts is: do AI companies need permission and licenses to train AI on copyrighted content? If so, no creative unlicensed comments will be usable for AI in the first place. If they’re not, these licenses don’t really apply.
However: you, as a random internet person, do get additional rights. You are bound by copyright law, and copyright law says you can’t just take someone else’s movie/picture/meme/poem/book/comment and post is elsewhere. With the CC license, you are able to do so, provided you follow the requirements described in the license.
Certain websites, like StackOverflow, apply these licenses on user generated content by default. Without such a license, copy/pasting from StackOverflow could be a copyright violation in some cases, which it now isn’t!