Post #2853029

2026-02-13 11:15 UTC

@sjn@chaos.social I understand the point of view of artists and creators. Being used for neural net training is not something many of them have ever contemplated. Which is fine, but licenses and copyright exist for that. But it's a totally different matter. Again, it is not about quality, and I could cite that photography was not considered art in the old days. At that time, a drawing was art, a photo a mere reproduction of reality. Perceptions of such things change a lot. We live in interesting times.

Replies (2)

@gisgeek@floss.social 2026-02-13 11:23

@sjn@chaos.social It is also one (not the main) reason why none of my drawings have been published on the web by me. Sure, I could add a license and copyright (but I would probably use a CC-BY license), but that would not prevent possible abuses. Of course, creators are now extremely worried about their role and future, but none did the same when CGI was introduced in cinema (and that is largely computer-generated, with no ridiculous marks). So maybe people should b more ehm, coherent...

Open ##2853030
@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org 2026-02-16 07:54

@gisgeek@floss.social @sjn@chaos.social licenses and copyright exist for that. Yes, they do. One of my big frustrations with LLMs is that AI companies violated licenses and copyrights on a vast scale. Yet, when creators seek recompense for that, we're told that can't be allowed to happen because it would destroy the AI industry.

Open ##2853045