• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Remember I’m pullin’ for ya–we’re all in this together. ✊🏼

      Thanks, and no disrespect meant, but I would believe that more if you did license your own comments as well.

      In case you need the formatting for it, here it is…

      [~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)

      Feel free to replace the link to point to whatever license you wish to use for your own content, if you do not want to use the same one that I am using.

      Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think the license does anything at all, but it is weird to me that you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID. How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so? If you had a unique phrase you could probably trigger the model into repeating it as evidence.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I don’t think the license does anything at all

          ProPublica would disagree with you.

          you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID

          The specific license number is explicitly stated.

          How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so?

          Already discussed in that other conversation post.

          Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            You are writing “anti-commercial AI,” they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially. You have completely different motivations. One major difference between you and ProPublica is they must have interacted with some actual lawyers explaining how copyright works.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 month ago

              You are writing “anti-commercial AI,” they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially.

              That’s just a description of what the license actually does, non-commercial usage of my content.

              It’s actually not even my description, it’s one I got from someone else, who’s also licensing their content with the same license.

              I have no problem with my content being used for non-commercial purposes.

              You have completely different motivations.

              No, I do not. My intent aligns with ProPublica.

              Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                “Your license doesn’t do what you say it does.”

                “Haha, joke’s on you, I don’t want it to do what I say it does.”

                Glad we figured that one out.