Timeline for Is it illegal for a firm to train an AI model on a CC BY-SA 4.0 corpus and make a commercial use of it without distributing the model under CC BY-SA?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11 at 18:28 | comment | added | endolith | @super-starball-ultra Yes? That doesn't allow them to sell the content to another company under a new license. | |
| May 11 at 18:27 | comment | added | starball | @endolith "for example (without limitation): Provide, maintain, and update the public Network [...] you cannot revoke permission for Stack Overflow to publish, distribute, store and use such content and to allow others to have derivative rights to publish, distribute, store and use such content" what exactly that second part means, I don't know (if it refers to CC-BY-SA 4.0, or allows relicensing). | |
| May 11 at 18:22 | comment | added | endolith | @super-starball-ultra That says "in order to provide the Services", though. That doesn't include re-selling the content to another company under a different license. | |
| May 11 at 18:14 | comment | added | starball | @endolith When did Stack Exchange start to dual-license user content?, Can SE just resell our data, relicense it and remove the attribution requirement? | |
| May 11 at 17:48 | comment | added | endolith | @super-starball-ultra Is that confirmed to actually be a separate license? It didn't always have that, did it? | |
| May 10 at 4:22 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @super-starball-ultra thanks, yes indeed meta.stackexchange.com/a/399665/178179 | |
| May 10 at 4:17 | comment | added | starball | note: SO Inc. has a separate licence to subscriber content which enables then to distribute it under a different license. see also meta.stackexchange.com/a/399674/997587 | |
| Dec 7, 2023 at 20:05 | comment | added | endolith | CC BY-SA doesn't forbid commercial use, so that part would be fine. (The training datasets likely contain lots of CC BY-NC-SA content, too, though, for which it wouldn't be OK.) CC BY-SA does require attribution and share-alike, which AI companies are not abiding by. The training dataset is a derivative work of all the works they scraped, the model itself is also a derivative work, and the output of the model is a derivative work, yet they don't provide attribution to the authors/artists who wrote/drew the content they used to create that output. | |
| Apr 22, 2023 at 10:08 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 22, 2023 at 3:47 | answer | added | Kevin | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 22, 2023 at 2:30 | history | edited | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 625 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2023 at 2:03 | history | asked | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |