It’s the modern equivalent of posting on Facebook that you don’t agree to Facebook doing x or y (Using your photos, binding you to new terms, etc.). The thought is that by posting the link on their comments, it will keep LLMs from using their comments for training purposes.
If you are going to include that link, you should also include this one, which shows that ProPublica does the same thing: https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
ProPublica didn’t post that to Lemmy, they publish to their own site. Someone else (PirateJesus) copy-pasted their article and posted it here.
That article is licensed by ProPublica though, with that Creative Commons license. Its just being noted in the Lemmy post, per these instructions.
Per ProPublica, including a Creative Commons license in your post/comments is a valid thing to do, when sharing their articles. You can’t hand-wave that away, citing the license in which an article is being shared as part of the post/comment is a valid thing to do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to? In the same way that Reddit “owns” all user generated content on it’s service because it owns/runs the service. I’m not really part of this whole argument, it’s just a detail I’m curious about.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to?
No. The TOS does not claim ownership of the content being posted.
You should read the article yourself. There license has nothing to do with AI. Quoting them directly:
Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us – how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact.
You need to stop pointing at ProPublica as if you’re copying them, because you aren’t. They’re using the license to encourage republishing their works. The first article linked in that post was published in 2009, long before the AI boom. I’ve gone over the license you link as well, and it doesn’t limit AI either. That’s something you seem to have fabricated yourself.
The reason people are annoyed by you is because it amounts to spam. It could be client specific as well. In Sync, your link gets auto-expanded with a link preview, same as any link. A cool feature, I really like it. Except your spam is everywhere you are and takes up screen real estate. This is again where ProPublica differs. On the post you keep referring to, there is not a link to the license, just the lettering at the top of a lengthy article. As another user pointed out, it wasn’t even posted by ProPublica, but reposted by an independent user.
You should read the article yourself. There license has nothing to do with AI.
I have. The description of the usage of the license is accurate. I used to just put ‘Creative Commons License’ but others were asking me about the purpose of using the license. I saw someone else use that description (they also add licensing to their content/comments), and just used it for mine as well.
Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us – how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact.
You need to stop pointing at ProPublica as if you’re copying them, because you aren’t.
I am though. Its showing a justification that a post/comment can be licensed. I mean, by default all content is already licensed, I’m just licensing mine with a more restrictive license to prevent commercial usage.
The reason people are annoyed by you is because it amounts to spam.
Its not spam, it has a purpose. Its not advertising.
It could be client specific as well.
And yes, if a client can’t support subscript/superscript fonts, per Lemmy’s formatting instructions, then the user needs to contact the devs of their client, to fix that problem.
The irony being that originally I wasn’t using a sub/superscript font, but I was getting complaints about the regular sized font being used for the license declaration, so I tried making it smaller as a compromise.
I really like it. Except your spam is everywhere you are and takes up screen real estate. This is again where ProPublica differs. On the post you keep referring to, there is not a link to the license, just the lettering at the top of a lengthy article.
Well, give me another way of licensing my content and how that license is displayed and travels with the content as it’s federated, and I’ll use it.
Otherwise, you can’t format the Internet to look just like how you personally want to see it.
And I’d argue the constant derailing of OPs with this same argument that never comes to a resolution time and time again does not help with how many times you see my license being displayed in my comments.
I’m sorry, but I have the right to license my content. Its not my responsiblity to format my posts/comments to your approval. And if you feel listing a license for my posts/comments is spam, feel free to block me, because I’m not going to stop doing it.
It’s the modern equivalent of posting on Facebook that you don’t agree to Facebook doing x or y (Using your photos, binding you to new terms, etc.). The thought is that by posting the link on their comments, it will keep LLMs from using their comments for training purposes.
It will not.
Edit: Here’s a great Ask Lemmy from a few weeks ago all about this https://lemmy.ml/post/15152684
It’s reminds me of the sovcits using their magic word soup which ends up doing nothing but make them look foolish.
If you are going to include that link, you should also include this one, which shows that ProPublica does the same thing: https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
ProPublica didn’t post that to Lemmy, they publish to their own site. Someone else (PirateJesus) copy-pasted their article and posted it here.
That article is licensed by ProPublica though, with that Creative Commons license. Its just being noted in the Lemmy post, per these instructions.
Per ProPublica, including a Creative Commons license in your post/comments is a valid thing to do, when sharing their articles. You can’t hand-wave that away, citing the license in which an article is being shared as part of the post/comment is a valid thing to do.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the person who effectively “owns” the content you produce on Lemmy and has the right to license it be the person who runs the instance your account is signed up to? In the same way that Reddit “owns” all user generated content on it’s service because it owns/runs the service. I’m not really part of this whole argument, it’s just a detail I’m curious about.
No. The TOS does not claim ownership of the content being posted.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
You should read the article yourself. There license has nothing to do with AI. Quoting them directly:
You need to stop pointing at ProPublica as if you’re copying them, because you aren’t. They’re using the license to encourage republishing their works. The first article linked in that post was published in 2009, long before the AI boom. I’ve gone over the license you link as well, and it doesn’t limit AI either. That’s something you seem to have fabricated yourself.
The reason people are annoyed by you is because it amounts to spam. It could be client specific as well. In Sync, your link gets auto-expanded with a link preview, same as any link. A cool feature, I really like it. Except your spam is everywhere you are and takes up screen real estate. This is again where ProPublica differs. On the post you keep referring to, there is not a link to the license, just the lettering at the top of a lengthy article. As another user pointed out, it wasn’t even posted by ProPublica, but reposted by an independent user.
I have. The description of the usage of the license is accurate. I used to just put ‘Creative Commons License’ but others were asking me about the purpose of using the license. I saw someone else use that description (they also add licensing to their content/comments), and just used it for mine as well.
I am though. Its showing a justification that a post/comment can be licensed. I mean, by default all content is already licensed, I’m just licensing mine with a more restrictive license to prevent commercial usage.
Its not spam, it has a purpose. Its not advertising.
And yes, if a client can’t support subscript/superscript fonts, per Lemmy’s formatting instructions, then the user needs to contact the devs of their client, to fix that problem.
The irony being that originally I wasn’t using a sub/superscript font, but I was getting complaints about the regular sized font being used for the license declaration, so I tried making it smaller as a compromise.
Well, give me another way of licensing my content and how that license is displayed and travels with the content as it’s federated, and I’ll use it.
Otherwise, you can’t format the Internet to look just like how you personally want to see it.
And I’d argue the constant derailing of OPs with this same argument that never comes to a resolution time and time again does not help with how many times you see my license being displayed in my comments.
I’m sorry, but I have the right to license my content. Its not my responsiblity to format my posts/comments to your approval. And if you feel listing a license for my posts/comments is spam, feel free to block me, because I’m not going to stop doing it.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)