this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
144 points (93.4% liked)
Games
16785 readers
821 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember I'm pullin' for ya--we're all in this together. ✊🏼
Thanks, and no disrespect meant, but I would believe that more if you did license your own comments as well.
In case you need the formatting for it, here it is...
[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)Feel free to replace the link to point to whatever license you wish to use for your own content, if you do not want to use the same one that I am using.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I don't think the license does anything at all, but it is weird to me that you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID. How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so? If you had a unique phrase you could probably trigger the model into repeating it as evidence.
ProPublica would disagree with you.
The specific license number is explicitly stated.
Already discussed in that other conversation post.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
You are writing "anti-commercial AI," they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially. You have completely different motivations. One major difference between you and ProPublica is they must have interacted with some actual lawyers explaining how copyright works.
That's just a description of what the license actually does, non-commercial usage of my content.
It's actually not even my description, it's one I got from someone else, who's also licensing their content with the same license.
I have no problem with my content being used for non-commercial purposes.
No, I do not. My intent aligns with ProPublica.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
"Your license doesn't do what you say it does."
"Haha, joke's on you, I don't want it to do what I say it does."
Glad we figured that one out.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~