I was a Flickr member for many years. It was the only photo sharing website that emphasized the art of photography and also felt like a real community where I actually made connections with and discovered like minded photographers. The focus was on the photography and it didn't play games to keep me locked into the platform (cough Instagram)
Nowadays, I have a locally hosted Immich instance. It's great as personal photo archive, but is missing the social features.
To be honest, with the advent of GenAI, I'm now reluctant to share my photos publicly because I don't like the feeling that my work will be slurped up for AI model training..
No they haven’t.
Copyright protected you against your work being used in ways you did not agree to.
Enforcement is another things but photographers and artists have had ways to push back against illicit use of their work, notably by larger corporations. Licensing is an industry based on this protection alone.
The difference is that now, large corporations with plenty of money are able to just swallow other people’s work and pretend it’s “fair use” and derivative enough that they wash their hand of the fact that their models, that they charge lots of money for, would not be able to output anything they were not trained on. At least you could argue that a large image model would have a hard time creating a picture of a cat if it hadn’t been fed pictures of cats that belonged to other people than the company producing the model.
I don’t know if training on the world’s data without compensation is fair or not. There are valid arguments both ways, but as an individual, it should still be your choice whether you want to allow your work to be used in ways you do not agree with.
I think people at large expect at least recognition, and if possible, compensation, for their creations.
When a consumption system is built around providing neither, I don’t think we should be surprised that people feel slighted.
> Copyright protected you against your work being used in ways you did not agree to.
Is this true? Remember that Harlan Ellison plagiarism case, the nightmare he went through to get a payout? It seems the vast majority of times, when a corporation decides it wants to use something you created, it gets to just do so because it has more capital than you.
I'm a previous career, I was a professional photographer. I spent a lot of time chasing after companies that operated with the "if it's in the internet, it must be free" mindset. The right letters, sent the right way, to the right people almost always gets things fixed.
In one example, a very major bank used one of my photos as the cover of a corporate report. That mistake paid my rent for a little over a year.
Most major corporations are not stupid enough to do that though, and if they do, their lawyers will tell them to just settle and the responsible person (or a scapegoat) will quietly move on. Far more likely it's some random blogger or low-rent publication grabbing stuff off the Internet.
Yes. A side effect of the expansion of copyright enforcement pushed by larger corporations means that companies generally are walking on eggshells and have streamlined processes to remove content based on a standardized compliant process. Even more so in the last few years with the billion-dollar lawsuit against Cox working its way through the courts.
> People have been able to do anything they want to copies of things uploaded to the internet for ages.
People, yes. The possibility of one person using a copyrighted work that I uploaded to the internet is very different in scope to that of a corporation with billions of dollars in funding using the same work to generate a product that automates the creation of similar such works.
I agree. Back in the day hackers were for the free enablement and usage of all data, code and media included. Now it seems everyone has turned into copyright hawks which ironically only entrench big players via regulatory capture so say goodbye to actual open source AI models, they're too poor to license content while big tech companies can.
The mantra, at least in German hacker scene, is: "use public data, protect private data"
Published data is somewhere in the middle. But open source movement was always around copyright. FSF uses Copyright in Form of "copyleft" GPL for their agenda as does more business focussed open source movement. They are all purposely not using "public domain"
Yes, there is also the pirating scene, "opening" up works and pushing copyright law, but only few advocate complete abolishment of copyright.
Open source was always around copyright because it was in spite of copyright not because of it, to fight against the notion of copyright using copyright itself as a tool, with copyleft as you mentioned. That is to say, the goals or values of the open source movements would be much better achieved if there weren't copyright in the first place, especially now that it's twisted to serve only big corporations and how books from over 50 years ago still aren't in the public domain due to Mickey Mouse laws for example. I am one of those few who do advocate for its abolishment.
There are also potential legal issues with public domain, especially in Europe where some rights can't always be disclaimed. There are OSI open source public domain licenses like the MIT-0 license.
How hard is it to understand "I want to share what Ive done, but I dont want predatory companies taking my work, profiting on it, and offering absolutely nothing in return."
Not if the big labs have anything to say about it! They're working to fix the 'problem', and with Mythos we no longer have any guarantees that the frontier will even be available to distill.
That's a false equivalence. Humans occasionally cause food poisoning at potlucks, and it's self-evident why we should hold McDonald's to a much higher standard due to the sheer scale of harm it can cause. A human, even when hopped up on stimulants, can't do a fraction of what a corporations with whole data centers can do.
It is in no way a false equivalence. Are you saying that if you write a book directly inspired by another you shouldn't be required to pay the author of the book that inspired you, unless you become successful, then you should be held to "higher standards"?
Biological humans are not, and should not be equivalent to corporations. There's a chasm in scale of execution, goals, and functional immortality.
Further case law established that I - a human - can create original work, if you are a non-human entity such as an LLM, or a monkey taking a picture, you cannot.
...and you've moved to the fallacy of composition. You are made of cells (if human), but that doesn't mean you reproduce via mitosis, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
A company is a ship of Theses. Someone can die, and theyre replaced within 3 days. A new hire takes their place within a month (or used to). And legally, the comapny's sole responsibility is "make money for shareholders".
An analysis of 'what a company is', is fair to compare it to the most laser-focused sociopath.
But your false point is trying to say 'Since humans run a company, its human ethics and just humans'. And what we have is demonstrably not human-like.
The 2003 documentary film 'The Corporation' does a deep dive as why you are wrong, in regards to falsely equivocating humans to a corporation. The worst of the worst behaviors of sociopathic humans get selected more and more, all in the name of money.
This remains a matter of active debate, and there is no law that requires or enshrines it. It's a legitimate opinion to hold, that a company should maximize shareholder returns, but it is not in any way a requirement to do so.
You cannot understand the fact that people don’t work their work stolen by corporations to train their very-much-for-profit bullshit generators… I mean, AI models?
"They" don't "take your work", your work is still there, and it only reproduces said work in the way that anybody writing a fantasy novel inspired by Lord of the Rings is plagiarizing Lord of the Rings.
The only way the “using LLM to create derivative works is the same as human being inspired” kind of argument works is if you consider LLMs to be conscious human-like beings with free will and capable of being inspired.
> I cannot understand this mindset. People have been able to do anything they want to copies of things uploaded to the internet for ages.
Right? On the one hand there was the mystery of what might happen with your photos and on the other there is the plain, inescapable knowledge that they will be donated to like four dude’s tech companies to make money off of without acknowledgement or compensation. That’s basically the same thing
i guess people who don't create anything can't understand how this feels, the day you check one of those massive image dataset they train on and see all your images... horrible feeling
I'm a big fan of the RES (Rotational Erection System) work that Yoshinobu Miyamoto has been making lately with Origami Simulator. He builds the crease forms parametrically in Cuttle (CAD tool I'm building), and then can copy/paste into Origami Simulator to see the folded form:
30mph is often needed to keep up with cars in areas where the bike infrastructure is poor or nonexistent. If you can't maintain the speed of traffic, cars will try to pass creating a more dangerous situation for the ebike rider.
I fail to find the connection between speed and safety, especially from a completely unshielded pilot point of view. It's not a bike's job to maintain safety and traffic speed, but the opposite.
> It's not a bike's job to maintain safety and traffic speed, but the opposite.
It does not matter whose job it is. If increasing speed improves safety for the cyclist, in this case by reducing the incentive for car drivers to overtake, then a good number of cyclists will do it.
I'd like to see the proof that increasing speed improves safety for the cyclist.
There's no road I commute on (including 25 mph city streets) where a 30mph bike would keep up with traffic, riding a skinny tire 40 lb bike at 30mph in the road shoulder that passes for bike lanes around here sounds hazardous.
If I wanted to keep up with car traffic so I can ride in the road, I'd get an e-scooter or e-motorcycle that's designed for higher speed. But then I couldn't ride in bike lanes.
Bike lanes do not exist in most places. The poster had said that their comment was about:
> areas where the bike infrastructure is poor or nonexistent
If there are bike lanes, then being overtaken by cars is not as much of a problem. But in most places, cyclists have to use the same lanes as motorised traffic, so it is more important to be able to keep up.
Ordering for pickup has gotten so much easier this year. Restaurants usually will hand me my food at the door, so I only need to spend a few seconds waiting, and the food is just in way better condition when I carry it home myself.
Personal electric vehicles are completely symbiotic with public transit, that's why they're called "last mile" vehicles; because you take mass transit to within a mile or two, and then hop on your scooter, e-board, EUC to go the rest of the way.
I enjoy walking and cycling, but not for my commute. It takes an hour to walk vs. 20 mins to cycle or scoot. If I cycle I arrive unavoidably sweaty. My scooter is fantastic for commuting. When I want to walk, I go to the lake with my wife.
Yup. The Ricoh Theta S captures spherical panoramas. The VR terminology is just overselling it. Neat idea though. It would be cool if there was a sonic component.
I think you're on to something. Say we record monaural audio with directional mics on/beside each cam, then encode and compress each stream, allowing for realtime stereo mixing during playback determined by view angle. Add a compass, accelerometer, gyro to track orientation. Couldn't we then achieve the desired effect and even simulate spatial audio effects, 6DoF movement in scene, blend UI sounds and add 3D sound to the environment? AR anyone? With a small peripheral you could emit a few chirps at diff frequencies and measure them using same mic rig to create a virtual map of the environment's acoustic characteristics and use it to render sound effects for composite elements, generated UI, nav feedback, similar to the way image based lighting is used today to make artificially generated objects appear as if they were really present in the scene.
Sounds like a good open hardware/software project but I'm short on cameras and mics for something like that. Anyone see potential there?
Combine with laser rangers and filters for their wavelength on the cams, and you can sample 3d point cloud data too and render the environment as a 3D (4D) scene, use it for composite reference, or slap a small LiDAR scanner under the whole thing for precise measurement.
Nowadays, I have a locally hosted Immich instance. It's great as personal photo archive, but is missing the social features.
To be honest, with the advent of GenAI, I'm now reluctant to share my photos publicly because I don't like the feeling that my work will be slurped up for AI model training..
reply