I have shared my work, both writing and visual, openly for the most part. (There is a part of me that secretly hopes to publish something that becomes wildly popular and makes tons of money.)

I’ve been thinking about this lately in terms of AI. AI has scraped the web for data to create models. There are several lawsuits currently in place trying to resolve some of the issues around collecting and using data.

There are a couple of theories around the issue of collecting and using data to train models.

1. Data used for training AI models is just like a human accessing the data. If a human reads something that helps inform the human moving forward. Likewise, AI should be able to “read” something and use that to create things.
2. The data provider should have the right to approve or deny the use of that data. These rights would include payment if requested.

Jeff Jarvis falls into the camp that any data can be used for training. His argument largely falls into the bucket of this is how things have always been done and how humans have been doing things forever. Additionally, information is free, but the value comes from the expression and analysis of that information.

Others fall into the camp, the data is “stolen”. For things behind a paywall for example, should the AI pay a one-time fee to completely copy everything and use that forever? The structures that have been put in place were put in place long before AI was making a difference, but there has long been controversy around similar issues.

The AI providers have made an interesting argument that they can’t afford to pay for all the data. (Apparently, in many cases AI companies have used pirated copies of data.) That is, I can’t become a millionaire unless I get your data for free. (I need to find the link to this)

Anyway, my thoughts are a bit more emotional at this point. I create and share things that I intend for other humans to use (or me – because sometimes I search for something and find that I did the write-up on how to do it). I want to help people. Similarly, I’ve shared photos under the construct that people are looking at them.

So, I’m not sure how I feel about things that I’ve created being used to train an AI model. One could argue that the result of the training is used by humans, so it’s really no different. Yet, somehow, at least right now, it feels different.

I’m feeling a bit lonely. But, maybe I shouldn’t? My subscriptions may have been broken.

I have subscriptions turned on, but I don’t really have anyone who subscribes.

Currently, I use Icegram Express to handle the subscriptions. This allows me to set up subscriptions so that people could get posts, no payment involved and you have to confirm your intention to subscribe. I do have a few people who seem to have filled in the “Subscribe” form, but have not confirmed.

Hm. I did have to set up DKIM and SPF for my domain a while back. It was supposed to be on, but, well, my hosting service messed that one up.

Anyway, I’d sure feel less lonely if a few people subscribed. I don’t do any real tracking, I don’t sell any information, etc. I’d obviously have an email address, but I’ve turned off any tracking (like whether the email was open or not).

There is a form to subscribe right there on the front page.

I recently read a wonderful post by Alan Levine – Cogdog on a picture that he had shared that ended up being used in an advertisement. I share almost all of my photos with the CC-BY-NC-SA license.

This breaks down to this:

• BY: credit must be given to the creator
• NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted
• SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms

Alan Levine talks about a write up where he shared his images as CC-0 (Public Domain Dedication: essentially making them free for anyone to use in any way). One of his favorite pictures of him and Cori ended up being used in an Instagram advertisement for OMGYES (which is focused on intimacy and pleasure).

He reached out to the company and received a reply from a real person. That person, Rob, sent along an apologetic email. He had the image removed from all ads. Here’s the thing, Rob didn’t have to do that. Alan had shared the image in a way that legally allowed Rob to use the image. (Rob also added a note about Alan’s photography being “stunning”). So there are good people out there. Alan has since changed the licensing of the photo to CC BY-NC-SA.

Since I’m participating in 52Frames this year, I got to thinking about licensing. Specifically, what is NC (noncommerical)? So I did a bit more digging. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a detailed explanation on Creative Commons. Specifically, does an ad count as “commercial”? (To me, it’s obviously a “Yes”, but I’ve been around enough to know that sometimes the law is different than my logic.). After a bit more research, it seems that NC is pretty broad and covers anything that “incorporates a financial transaction”. The Smithsonian has a nice explanation:

Non-commercial use encompasses a wide range of exciting possibilities—including artistic, educational, scholarly, and personal projects that will not be marketed, promoted, or sold. Examples include, but are not limited to, presentations, research, tattoos, sixth-grade science fair projects, tablet backgrounds, free and ad-free apps, GIFs, holiday centerpieces, Halloween costumes, decoupage, inspiration boards, and shower curtains.

Commercial use is any reproduction or purpose that is marketed, promoted, or sold and incorporates a financial transaction. Examples include, but are not limited to, merchandise, books for sale (including textbooks), apps that will be sold or have advertising, periodicals and journals with paid subscriptions, TV programs and commercial films, advertisements, websites that sell images, and cause-related marketing.

So, it seems that choosing the CC-BY-NC-SA license is generally going to be right for me. On some of the photos that I submit, I may keep an All Rights Reserved on, but I’m guessing that will be pretty few.