@farbenstau Probably can't use the CC trademarks, but the text of the licenses themselves is CC0. Which means derivative licenses should be in the clear as long as they're not misrepresented as being from the CC organization.

Of course, "have a lawyer look over any legal document you create" is still good advice.

@farbenstau Having a proper lawyer is not in my budget, and so, not in my options unfortunately.

I check: 600€ per appointments, first one to meet and frame the issue, then two more for work in progress, and even more then to redact the paper or something. I don't have ~3000€ to invest on this, and one afternoon per week to take the car to the closest city and wait into the desk of a lawyer.

Right now, just drawing the line publicly and stamping it on my art might be enough to dissuade usage.

If there are people who can send you a cease and desist for modifying a license about modifying your work and preventing you from sending cease and desists, there is something definitely wrong there. It's fine to give people legal advice that their modification can be rules lawyered, but threatening them as if the Creative Commons organization owns the Creative Commons license really makes me glad to give CC the middle finger and tell everyone I know never to trust anything their license of hypocrisy says.

In other words, you shouldn't be able to copyright "copyright!"

Are you doing this *in addition to* CC BY / CC BY-SA btw?

Note that it might be possible: CC BY's legal code says:

> Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

@cwebber
Meanwhile at Creative Commons:
github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/discussions

These used to be issues. Also the protest fell on deaf ears.

I'm sorry but CC won't be on your side here 😿

@josch I've had a non free license on my web site for years, and I don't think it even slows down big-LLM, even if it gives me some small satisfaction.

Edit: this just CC-*-NC, which won't help the OP. @davidrevoy

@josch I have seen a README which contained a paragraph like:

"It is the opinion of the author of this software, that the output of any LLM trained on this software, is a modified copy of this program (as opposed to part of an unmodified "aggregate") as per §5 of the GPL-3¹, and must be licensed appropriately, or will infringe its copyright. But also similarly for all the LLM's other training inputs."

And that should still be DFSG-free

¹ Or whatever license/§ is appropriate

@aspragg Yes, writing it like that would not make it non-free as far as I understand copyright law. I'd still not add such a paragraph (even though i agree with it) because in the end it will not matter what my opinion is but what some court's judgement on the topic is.

I think that using copyright for free software (what many call "copyleft") is just an interesting "hack" and if necessary copyright law will be changed to benefit those in power as it always has been done sadly.

@davidrevoy

@Quantillion that's even worse, astoundingly enough; they were use ng the AI as a tool, so the data set and suppositions were loaded into the model, and then the company claimed their AI found the solution

For this, I am seeing people reply with 'you need your own license', possibly that could be created with a coalition of like-minded artists