Schall und StilleJun 26

I encourage every fediverse #artist who distributes their work under a #creativecommons license to chime in on this topic.

https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/discussions/21

#music #ccmusic #noa #ai #freemusic #art #musicians #musician #arts #culture

Please boost. 

(edit: exchanged the issue link with a link to the Creative Commons discussion page)

This is all so *very* wrong. · creativecommons cc-signals · Discussion #21

(copied from #14) Problem This whole idea is completely and utterly wrong. Description Inviting AI scrapers to negotiate licensing terms for CC works is like a flock of sheep holding a summit to dr...

GitHub
Show threadSloyment

@stephan
The whole CC Signals stuff reads like someone trying to create new CC licenses while not understanding how licenses work. AIs don’t need a license because neither do they copy nor distribute nor perform a protected work. Instead, they analyze works in order to create a model that can be used to create new works. This is completely legal usage of any copyrighted work, no license needed.

I fully disagree with all the rant against AI. Instead, I have embraced AI to let it create music, which I then put under Creative Commons Zero.

What we need is AI models under free licenses, that can run locally.

Jul 5 at 8:24pmWeb
Show threadMomoJul 5

@Sloyment@social.tchncs.de
That's wrong. Companies take content and use them in their work processes. The result is an LLM model trained in something. By taking my work and using it to derrive something from it, they have to attribute me and release their work (=their LLM) in the same license.

It's the same as taking music and giving it to my kid to analyze (=listening to it) to be a better drummer. I bet Sony Music would never tell me I need no license for that as well.

I'm not interested in any further interaction, but I will not let bullshit stay in this conversation without an objection. And this is why I reply and block here.
@stephan