Alex WildPretty fucking bold of these scientists to scrape one of my copyrighted photographs off the internet and then re-release it uncredited under a Creative Commons license because they used it for training data for an algorithm.
Using copyrighted images to train algorithms is a kind of grey area, and I can see some decent arguments in favor of either.
But you can't act as someone else's agent and distribute their work without permission.
Brian Hawthorne@alexwild @questauthority Arguably, this falls under fair use. Under the standard 4-part fair use doctrine:
1. The use is transformative and for educational/research purposes.
2. The nature of your work is more factual than fictional, as it documents actual living organisms in situ.
3. The authors display only a thumbnail of your work, likely only a small percentage of the pixels from your photography.
4. The use is unlikely to harm your ability to profit from your work.
1. The use is transformative and for educational/research purposes.
2. The nature of your work is more factual than fictional, as it documents actual living organisms in situ.
3. The authors display only a thumbnail of your work, likely only a small percentage of the pixels from your photography.
4. The use is unlikely to harm your ability to profit from your work.
@bhawthorne @questauthority Lol, no.
MDPI is a for-profit publisher; this is not classroom use, and it is not educational *about my image*, which is not even credited.
Your arguments about "actual organisms in situ" is just dumb, really, since you have no idea. It was a 2 hour studio session I had to arrange, including sets and lighting.
@bhawthorne @questauthority Points 3-4 are likely have some merit, although it's worth noting that they did display the entire work, not a crop, even though the resolution is much reduced.
binmaa@alexwild @bhawthorne @questauthority thats the main problem in these discussions. The 4 points are just interpretations of how it is handled in the US. But even these are rules would be handled differently in Europe.
And thats the main thing with fair use. It's always arguable. And in case of AI it probably needs a court decission.