Hi folks.
This guide was originally written by yours truly for the Spanish Wiki. I have translated it to English myself.
I hope you find it useful.
The Dummy's Guide to Licenses / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» The Dummy's Guide to Licenses
This is the discussion related to the wiki page The Dummy's Guide to Licenses.
someone, let's say Rounderhouse, uses the image I took without asking permission
you know he would do it
Glad we have guides like this to warn us from the houserounder photo stealer
GNU GPL
That’s odd. I always thought the GPL and the CC-BY-SA were compatible…
Technically the GPL is incompatible with a lot of things, because it imposes certain kinds of restrictions (basically the share-alike stuff). But as a practical matter, if you asked the content owner you could probably get them to dual-license GPL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 or something.
It’s one way compatible, so something CC could be released under GPL but you can’t take something released under GPL and release a derivative work under cc.
Noting that I have added another question to the FAQ regarding Pexels and Pixabay and relevant information.
Noting that I have added another question to the FAQ regarding the sudden increase of users interested in using Trevor Henderson's art in articles.
As far as I understand, it will create problems only if the particular article will come under the threat of print or adaptation, and only for the creators of the aforementioned products. What kind of inconvenience do they pose for the SCP authors and the Wiki, to bar their use?
They are completely legally incompatible with Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0. As we have that license, we are not allowed to use that content. This is well established and not up for discussion or debate.
I am not trying to start a debate here or say that this is a wrong approach. I am just interested in the reasoning, from the professional standpoint.
It isn’t an “approach,” and it isn’t a decision we made.
ND and NC are not legally compatible with SA. Trying to release SA content under either of them would constitute a violation of CC-BY-SA, and thus copyright infringement.
If you think it should work differently, please take it up with Creative Commons.
Of course, this is quite understandable. I would be grateful if you could clarify that I read the implications correctly:
"It is tehchnically impossible to release an SCP article that will contain an SA text accompanied with an NC image".
"Technically impossible", no.
Illegal, yes.
Thank you for the clarification and for the timely responses.
Now I will return to my cave so I could comprehend in solitude how this works for 173.
[DUPLICATION DELETED]
Images generated by AI sites are typically not allowed, though one exception is thispersondoesnotexist.
Ok… good to know. Guess I can use some of my thispersondoesnotexist.com generated images for something. Maybe even edit them too if I'm not happy with the current image.
I don't want to end that discussion here, cause this is also interesting considering that Artbreeder has a section called "Portraits", which is basically thispersondoesnotexist 2.0, but you can go back and revisit them on the site without having to worry about them disappearing if you ever lose the image at all. I can see why this would be a problem though:
- The whole A.I. grey area thing despite being public domain for everyone. It does highly encourage us to cite the image though, but that wouldn't do much considering it isn't allowed on this site.
- A no-brainer, as many generated portraits have more stylized artistic depictions of humans. Copying that may basically be a lawsuit in of itself. There was even a guy who got into a whole legal thing with other Artbreeders when he painted one of his Artbreeder images, but I can't remember which article that was.
- The ability to upload other images to generate a new one. Even the potential to upload those that are copyrighted in some form.
That's all I can understand as to why using Artbreeder's portraits is not allowed, unless there are other parts of it that I'm completely unaware of, but in comparison to thispersondoesnotexist.com…
When it comes to the generation of realistic people… there's practically no difference between them.
If you were to show me an AI generated image of a realistic human from both of these sites and ask me which one is which, I would not be able to tell the difference. The only dead giveaway though, if we were to analyze them more closely, would be the image's dimensions, with Artbreeder images being much smaller than the ones from thispersondoesnotexist.
That's all I can say on this.
Fair Use images are currently under heavy review and are currently inadvisable.
I'm glad the policy is being reviewed, at least. In the meantime I think I came up with a good stopgap for 3085.
Can I use thispersondoesnotexist or not?
Since in a previous post it stated you can use it, but now when I look at the guide now it does not state that you can.
So can you use it or not?
Current location: Your House
No, because image breeders are, in large part, a very fancy combination of image interpolator and effect filter. The tangle of code of these neural networks boils down to a compressed collection of data that could be compared to tracing or creating stencils from existing works, and some tricks the network has "learned" are efficient and effective ways of blending those together to get the answers its been told are right.
Okay, thanks!
Current location: Your House
/forum/t-10604686/the-dummy-s-guide-to-licenses#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
