|
You want to use my code, without ever knowing I wrote it? You want to use my hard work, regurgitated anonymously, stripped of all credit, stripped of all attribution, stripped of all identity and ancestry and citation? FUCK YOU! Training must be opt in, not opt out. Every artist, every creative individual, must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to having their hard work regurgitated anonymously by Copilot or Dall-E or whatever. If you want to donate your code or your painting or your music so it can easily be "written" or "painted", in whole or in part, by everyone else, without attribution, then go ahead and opt in. But if they don't EXPLICITLY OPT IN, you can't use the artist's or author's creative work for training. All these code/art washing systems, that absorb and mix and regurgitate the hard work of creative people must be strictly opt in. |
Should students need to attribute the copyrighted textbooks and lessons that they learned from for all their future work?
Should artists attribute every reference they've used? Even if they draw stick figures based on the reference? Even if they only use small parts from multiple references?
What's different from a machine learning something and a human learning it?
I think in terms of practical open source/permissive licenses it makes the most sense for new licenses to be made that include no-training clauses for the rights holders that dislike machine learning.
Dall-E's use of training on non-permissive copyrighted web-scraped data seems more complicated and I imagine there will eventually be lawsuits to figure that out.