Gregory's Server@Gargron @KevinMarks @davew In offering Glaze they do seek to prevent artists’ work from being ingested. But beyond Cara, do you see the wider point about consent and author control in the fediverse?
|
7 comments
 @ben @KevinMarks @davew It's worth noting that Glaze is neither a guarantee that something won't be ingested into an LLM, nor is it something that comes at absolutely no cost; depending on setting it creates visible artifacts similar to JPEG compression that I have seen artists complain about. I don't think Glaze is relevant to the federation discussion however.  @Gargron @KevinMarks @davew Thanks for expanding. I think understanding your position on this is really important. I definitely agree that DRM is not the objective; sitting in the US, I don't know that I trust the courts to get to the right place. There's a strong possibility that the EU will do better. @ben @KevinMarks @davew One more thing. I am not a lawyer, but in my understanding the "default" license for any works you publish on the web is not "public domain", it is "no license". Content published on the fediverse cannot be used for anything, legally, except the intended function of the service. It is only if you want to to give more rights that you'd need "content licensing support". In that sense I also don't see this as a show stopper for federation today. @Gargron @KevinMarks @davew As a legal principle I think that's right (although also not a lawyer). We may need a case to act as precedent in order to truly establish this beyond doubt.   @Gargron @ben @KevinMarks @davew One thing that feeds offer is a machine-readable rights declaration. Here is a copy/paste from my feed: <rights>All content written by Tim Bray and photos by Tim Bray Copyright Tim Bray, some rights reserved, see /ongoing/misc/Copyright</rights> - the linked HTML file asserts invokes a CC license. Does ActivityPub have the equivalent? Because for legal issues, I’m really uncomfortable relying on defaults. These things should be explicit. |
@ben @KevinMarks @davew I remember we already talked about this yesterday. I think discussions about LLM training should be happening at the legal level, not technical, unless you want DRM. Personally, I do not want to advocate for DRM. I do not believe that robots.txt is an adequate defense against LLM training, and that the onus of keeping up with all LLM user agents should not be on website authors.