To whom it may concern,
I would just like to state for the record that I think Creative Commons' decision to, essentially, support generative AI by stating it falls under fair use, is extremely ill-advised. The "dump the entire internet into a funnel" approach of AI training violates the independence of every artist, even the ones who claim to support its development. It provides huge multinational corporations the opportunity to steal intellectual property on a scale never before seen by conveniently shielding it under the umbrella of "transformative work".
While I know it is stated quite clearly "Creative Commons is not a law firm"; like it or not, Creative Commons is at the forefront of intellectual property on the internet today, and statements of effective support for IP theft via AI training sets a dangerous precedent. Corporate attorneys are working overtime attempting to draft lawsuits that restrict independent creativity, and Creative Commons is handing them support, just because the the courts of the United States and various other countries have currently decided it is in their best interests, from a "not paid enough to care" standpoint, to claim generative AI is transformative.
Heretofore I had always applied CC public licenses to my work because I was under the impression that it was on the side of independent creativity. I am dismayed beyond belief to see I was mistaken. As a result, I must now apply the heavily-restrictive "All rights reserved" language to all my creative works, turning off potential licensees and encouraging piracy. A CC public license was a signal that the creator cared enough about their followers to encourage others to adapt their work into something else. AI training subverts transformative work in the worst possible way, undermining people's trust in each other; this can serve no one's interest except billionaire CEOs with dreams of artistic conquest.
Sincerely,
Tina V. Rosenthal
--9 May 2024--