@lfa it sounds like people can express they DON'T want their works to be used in Al training via #AIPreferences , and that #CCSignal is for people that do want their work to be used in specific ways.
A great many people already post their work to the public domain, or creative commons: #AllRightsReversed , #CopyLeft or via similar licenses.
If #AiPreferences already supports the #NoAI preference then it makes sense to me to offer content creators #CcSignals for more fine tune control.
@lfa
" #CCsignals doesn't include its own opt-out preference because the foundation of CC signals, the #IETFAIPreferences, already does. Like CC signals, the #AIPreferences are still a draft. For more information see the IETF [AI Preferences (aipref)](https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aipref/about/) working group. There are also technologies designed to prevent AI from accessing content. See this [comment](https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/discussions/24#discussioncomment-13587753) for examples."
The public consultation for the @creativecommons (preference) signals for AI use of content is now open: https://creativecommons.org/2025/06/25/introducing-cc-signals-a-new-social-contract-for-the-age-of-ai/. The proposed signals are in the image. #creativecommons #ccsignals
Nach dem #CCsignals desaster auch hier eine interessante info in sachen "freie" musik #mobygratis #lizenz
Neue Klage gegen #Microsoft 📚 Autoren werfen Microsoft vor, das #Megatron-Modell mit 200.000 #Raubkopien trainiert zu haben.
#GettyImages verlagert Fokus 🖼️ In UK wurde die Hauptklage gegen #StabilityAI fallen gelassen.
#CreativeCommons reagiert 🌐 Mit #CCsignals will Creative Commons einen Standard schaffen, um maschinenlesbar die Nachnutzung von Daten rechtssicher zu regeln.
👉 https://eicker.TV ▹ #Technik #Medien #Politik #Wirtschaft ⏻ https://eicker.BE/ratung (2/2)
At its core, #CCSignals is an attempt by Creative Commons, a Silicon Valley-based organisation, to legitimise the AI grifts of its donors – Google, Microsoft, and Meta (Zuckerberg).
Creative Commons was always a thinly-veiled attempt at enabling Big Tech data farmers to get more data (that’s why the whole “open data” realm is so well funded/popular – open as in “open for business” not free as in “freedom”) but at least their original licenses (non-commercial, share-alike, no derivatives, and yes, sometimes even just attribution) were genuinely useful for people as well as for corporations.
I like to think (perhaps naïvely, I don’t know) that Lawrence Lessig had his heart in the right place when he came up with it all. But I’m biased. I learned how to present from him (including how to use my presentation display) and we even presented a session together back in the day when I was running Open Source Flash. I’m also a big fan of his concept of “institutional corruption”. But I have no illusions that we see eye to eye on all things and I haven’t spoken to him in over a decade.
Anyway, that’s neither here nor there.
This is Creative Commons jumping the shark (is jumping the shark the original enshittification?) and destroying their credibility with a scheme that doesn’t benefit people, only their corporate donors.
Keep using the existing licenses, as they have value, but don’t help them legitimise this latest land grab by the same trillion-dollar corporations and billionaires who are busy destroying our habitat, human rights, and democracy.
In fact, if they go ahead with this, it might be an idea to fork the original Creative Commons licenses and publish them under a different name in an effort to counter the use of their legitimacy to whitewash Big AI.
#CreativeCommons #SiliconValley #BigTech #BigAI #AI https://mastodon.cloud/@raymondpert/114754532045016792
@stk Hashtagging this: #CCSignals
Thx. for the interesting Blogpost.
Given the recent @creativecommons silliness, I hastily added a bit to the 4.4 section of my essay "Why Free-Culture: Art, Knowledge and Culture as Commons": "4.4 Free-Culture is not dependent on the entities that provide the licenses"
https://codeberg.org/jectoons/Why-Free-Culture/src/branch/main/versions/english/WhyFreeCulturev0.7.pdf
#ccsignals are a weird idea being implemented weirdly. It puts projects like Fodongo in a weird spot because it makes me feel complicit in the poor choices of an organization that actually doesn't seem to care as much about the Commons as I was led to believe, and instead seems to want us to just accept the fact that AI is here to stay and scrape and dilute Culture.
It is a shame and I am very upset about it.
#CCsignals just adds unnecessary legal nonsense. As someone who has previously used the CC-BY license for their works, the last thing I want to have to do is go back and add signals to my works in order to protect them from being used recklessly by LLMs/generative AI. https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals/discussions/44
My take on the #CCSignals thing:
The idea itself is sensible but @creativecommons is the wrong organisation to push it. This should have been part of an @ietf working group result. If industry pushback was to strong to get this in @creativecommons could have cried foul and people mad at it now would likely be on its site but creative commons already under threat of legitimacy due to AI shouldn't have been seen as cowtowing to said "industry".
Ich habe eine kurze Notiz zu #CCsignals im Kontext von #OER geschrieben.
https://ebildungslabor.de/blog/kurz-notiert-cc-signal/
#CreativeCommons have moved the #cc-signals repository issues to Github discussions. They are also responding to issues with "the spec is open, so contribute" and this is the most disingenuous shit ever.
They aren't asking for feedback. They are making an announcement. Their mind is already made up and they'll tank their reputation for filthy money.
Good riddance. They commons deserve better.
#CreativeCommons somehow thought it was a good idea to float a set of licences that allows (but doesn't disallow) use for #AISlob and weirdly people (including yours truly) are not amused:
https://mastodon.social/@creativecommons/114745246845213731
Did they really think that after AI megacorps used CC (among other bs) as an excuse to steal copyrighted material this would go down well? Baffling.
I wrote down my thoughts about the CC Signals (regarding re-use through TDM and generative AI) proposed by Creative Commons and the side effects I see with them:
https://stefan.bloggt.es/2025/06/licenses-signals-and-genai-scrapers/
tl;dr: This looks like a foot gun to me that has the potential to wind back the clock for decades. And I find it interesting how the proposal is being discussed right now.
Hey @creativecommons, how’s this for a CC signal for AI, you clowns?
🖕
@1337 @RichiH @creativecommons hmm.
https://github.com/creativecommons/cc-signals reads reasonable to me, and the issues raised so far seem to completely disregard any value in training GenAI -- so of course they don't see the value of a consent mechanism, which is what signals seems to be.
FWIW I license all my writing as CC and I expect it (and wish it) to end up in training corpora.
Gerade auch im Kontext von #OER gibt es in nächster Zeit viel zu diskutieren.
✅ Hashtag #CCsignals ist abonniert. 🙂
Mehr zum Hintergrund hier:
https://creativecommons.org/ai-and-the-commons/cc-signals/
Maybe instead of Creative Commons #CCSignals all we need is a simple traffic light for AI scrapers.
green = go ahead, try not to choke on it
yellow = please don't—our infrastructure is falling apart
red = http status 503
Creative Commons Launches ‘CC Signals’ to Help Photographers Control AI Use of Their Images https://petapixel.com/2025/06/26/creative-commons-launches-cc-signals-to-help-photographers-control-ai-use-of-their-images/ #creativecommons #Technology #aitraining #ccsignals #copyright #News #Law #ai
