FIREFLY BUBBLE TROUBLE 2 LICENSE

However some reuse (such as transformative use, parodies, or use of snippets for various purposes, especially non-commercial purposes) may be considered fair use.

FIREFLY BUBBLE TROUBLE 2 LICENSE

Cover versions of songs may qualify for a compulsory license with a set royalty payment scale. They could also point out that their images were used for commercial purposes without permission and without compensation to generate works that compete with their own.įor example, even a short sample used in a song usually has to be licensed. Artists could very reasonably argue that AI-generated images are derivative works from their own images - especially if there is notable similarity or portions appear to be copied. The current moment is a chance to do better across an equally large (if not larger) technological shift.ĭerivative works or remixes usually require a license. Part of the reason why services like Spotify are so terrible economically is the way digital rights were assumed by labels and streamers often as extensions of older pre-digital conceptions without much in the way of negotiation by artists. It's certainly better than 'people collecting training data should be able to take anything they can get their digital hands on without any consideration other than possession.' Maybe some artists would take a nanocent per use.

I think 'artists should be able to negotiate what consideration they want in return for their work for a training set' is a better one. 'the artists will get such a small payout so we should make sure they get nothing' is quite the take. > it will become a spotify where each creator gets a sum total of $0.00000000001 per AI their media item was trained on Specifically updated to cover a case that didn't exist 10 years ago, a case whose explicit intention is reproduction of not just one narrow aspect of the work but a combinatorially large number of aspects of the work (there's no other reason for adding it to the training set, that's the nature of these models). Just a claim on the creator's work and how it's used/ distributed.

No 'flavor copyrights.' No ownership of ideas. People should be able to decide if their work is put into a training set, and what they get in return for it. What I'm proposing isn't that different, and it's simple: It gives creators incentives and a stake in their work by allowing for some degree of control in how works are used and especially how they're distributed.

This is a cartoon conception of both existing copyright and the proposal I described.Ĭopyright applies to works, not 'ideas' (William Gibson doesn't have a copyright claim on the 'idea' of a virtual reality but he does on _Neuromancer_ as a work). > If this kind of abstract copyright regime of 'I had the idea first, and anyone who uses a derivative of my idea must pay me money!' is a very sillpery slope They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license. :) I like when I may be compensated :)Īnd in section 5 they say: 'We will pay you as described in the pricing and payment details at for any sales of licenses to Work, less any cancellations, returns, and refunds.' What is funny is that 'we may compensate you at our discretion as described in section 5 (Payment) below'. I guess this would fall under the 'developing new features and services'. 'You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to users developing new features and services archiving the Work and protecting the Work. The contributor agreement linked from here is this: I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe.

Firefly bubble trouble 2