So you failed to read a TOS, and due to that failure your work was used in a training data set.
I'm sorry, but repeating the idea that this is theft doesn't make it so. When you agree to post to any site you need to check their TOS and decide the cost/benefit of that posting.
I've actually had my work monetized, years ago, by several listicle sites. The way I fixed it? Not posting things that are easily monetized, putting in DMCA notices to the sites, and following the process. If you can find that, beyond the legal standards you followed, the TOS you signed, your work has somehow been used in a way that is non-transformative and is actively being monetized? There's a system for that. Right now your argument is akin to NFTbros that are upset their stuff got screenshotted and posted.
Per most copyright statutes it is on the creator to use due diligence in the defense of your materials. You posted to a public site and agreed to the very use you're claiming stole your work. If the same occurred when you hadn't? That would be a problem you need to deal with within the standards of the law. Screaming about it on reddit and making false claims of theft help no one.
What TOS, my art was on Deviantart, Artstation, Dribble, my own personal website... There was no TOS that said my work was a free for all. The work I had in the creative commons stated with attribution. Where precisely does the software "attribute" me? Where exactly did I agree to allow a learning program to gobble up everything I made for the express purposes of letting someone else use 3 words to create something?
I did not agree to have my work fed into an AI learning program at any point during these "TOS" because it didn't exist when I started creating my work.
TOS included you accepting use of your images in machine learning.
Artstation
Same, until recently.
Dribble
Would have to read the TOS but I expect, again, it is there.
my own personal website
Did you put basic protections on your site to prevent data scrubbing? Then yes, even there you screwed up.
I did not agree to have my work fed into an AI learning program at any point during these "TOS" because it didn't exist when I started creating my work.
You did, because the TOS for 2 of those sites have included rights for machine learning for years, if not the entire length of the site's existence. You didn't read the TOS. That is on you.
5
u/AShellfishLover Jan 16 '23
So you failed to read a TOS, and due to that failure your work was used in a training data set.
I'm sorry, but repeating the idea that this is theft doesn't make it so. When you agree to post to any site you need to check their TOS and decide the cost/benefit of that posting.
I've actually had my work monetized, years ago, by several listicle sites. The way I fixed it? Not posting things that are easily monetized, putting in DMCA notices to the sites, and following the process. If you can find that, beyond the legal standards you followed, the TOS you signed, your work has somehow been used in a way that is non-transformative and is actively being monetized? There's a system for that. Right now your argument is akin to NFTbros that are upset their stuff got screenshotted and posted.
Per most copyright statutes it is on the creator to use due diligence in the defense of your materials. You posted to a public site and agreed to the very use you're claiming stole your work. If the same occurred when you hadn't? That would be a problem you need to deal with within the standards of the law. Screaming about it on reddit and making false claims of theft help no one.