> 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
You can't revoke the old ones, you can choose to only communicate new ones with the restrictions though, and make it other peoples problem to figure out if there's another more permissive license available for that particular work...
For CC By-Sa works the new one might also not be strictly less permissive, because applying the restriction should allow people deriving derivatives to do the same via the share alike clause when they previously couldn't (though I didn't actually check the wording this person is using so this is just assuming the restriction is applied like I think it ought to be).
You can’t backport additional restrictions to a CC licence, but you can publish the same work under a new licence. Naturally that won’t stop anyone from using the work under terms of the old licence if they know about it, but it might discourage people (and in fantastical theory, bots) who don’t.
Another point is that any updates to existing works will only be available under the new licence. This might seem irrelevant to drawings and paintings, but the author has on occasion made changes to his older works for one reason or another, so at least the resulting newer versions would be protected by the additional terms (assuming they’re legally in the clear, of course).
uh, also writing it next to cc sounds like a dumb idea, as it makes it a bit of a legal hell? like as long as its not an explicit exception to the cc license like llvm does with their license this seems pretty ambiguous what license really applies here
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.
> 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.
I feel that’s a gross mischaracterisation of the author’s beliefs. David Revoy has always been a very vocal supporter of free software, showing great respect for the work that goes into it and appreciation for the community around it.
He clearly states that for him, abandoning Linux is ‘not possible right now’. Which makes sense, because GNU/Linux has been the free user-friendly alternative. What else do people expect him to do? Jump ship to BSD or GNU/Hurd and expect his entire workflow to work perfectly on day one? Start painting using pencil and paper, completely changing the nature of his work from day to day?
Moreover, if Linux, Ubuntu, or Debian (I’m not quite up to date on that) have accepted AI contributions, it’s because their maintainers have decided to accept them. It’s not like David has been vibecoding his tools to replace human-made software; he just can’t be expected to flawlessly work around everyone else who decides to do that. Contrasting him exercising control over his own work to stifle AI and choosing to (at least temporarily) tolerate others not doing the same with theirs (that he in turn makes use of) as some kind of hypocrisy is in extremely bad taste.
The distinction is between who chooses to use the AI as a tool, and whose intellectual property was stolen to make the AI tool in the first place. “Linux maintainers choose to use AI” is a different issue entirely from “I do not want my IP to be used to train models”.
By his own standards then, I can say “Well I’m ok to use ComfyUI because its developers have explicitly said it’s fine to use with common AI models”. Like his Linux argument, it completely ignores what IP those models were trained on.
He takes the position: “My art is released Creative Commons except for AI”. I expect many open source programmers feel the same way, but he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.
A voluntary donations of your effort are not the same a theft.
A great number of doctors, lawyers, artists, programmers. etc donate their time doing professional level work to worthy causes. Whatever anyone does with AI is not in the same category.
The AI doing the programming was trained using theft. If theft of intellectual property is wrong, as he says it is of his output, then it’s wrong for training programming too.
these licenses are irrevocable and you can't just "backport" additional restrictions
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-the-author-...
For CC By-Sa works the new one might also not be strictly less permissive, because applying the restriction should allow people deriving derivatives to do the same via the share alike clause when they previously couldn't (though I didn't actually check the wording this person is using so this is just assuming the restriction is applied like I think it ought to be).
Another point is that any updates to existing works will only be available under the new licence. This might seem irrelevant to drawings and paintings, but the author has on occasion made changes to his older works for one reason or another, so at least the resulting newer versions would be protected by the additional terms (assuming they’re legally in the clear, of course).
Copyright was fully intended to allow authors to control how their work is used.
“Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.
He clearly states that for him, abandoning Linux is ‘not possible right now’. Which makes sense, because GNU/Linux has been the free user-friendly alternative. What else do people expect him to do? Jump ship to BSD or GNU/Hurd and expect his entire workflow to work perfectly on day one? Start painting using pencil and paper, completely changing the nature of his work from day to day?
Moreover, if Linux, Ubuntu, or Debian (I’m not quite up to date on that) have accepted AI contributions, it’s because their maintainers have decided to accept them. It’s not like David has been vibecoding his tools to replace human-made software; he just can’t be expected to flawlessly work around everyone else who decides to do that. Contrasting him exercising control over his own work to stifle AI and choosing to (at least temporarily) tolerate others not doing the same with theirs (that he in turn makes use of) as some kind of hypocrisy is in extremely bad taste.
By his own standards then, I can say “Well I’m ok to use ComfyUI because its developers have explicitly said it’s fine to use with common AI models”. Like his Linux argument, it completely ignores what IP those models were trained on.
He takes the position: “My art is released Creative Commons except for AI”. I expect many open source programmers feel the same way, but he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.
Not a great philosophy when you realize that the set of things we all love is probably empty. Well, maybe it contains kittens.
A great number of doctors, lawyers, artists, programmers. etc donate their time doing professional level work to worthy causes. Whatever anyone does with AI is not in the same category.
“I don't like their policy, but I accept it as it is because it is not possible right now for me to paint on something else.”