What permissive license are you using for your art?

[garystu]

I'm currently using the Peer Production licence for my art, but am thinking of moving to Copyleft. (Thinking out loud, not legally binding)

I am also morally committed to keeping my art free and open. I'm planning to release a comic I had "paywalled" (nobody brought it) because I'd rather people see my art than not. I've decided it was wrong to try and keep a paywall up, and I have seen the pro-copyright side of the artosphere get uglier and more cruel in recent years. I no longer want to be a party to that.

Anyway! So what permissive licenses are people on this forum using? And why?

[TheFrugalGamer]

I do everything as Creative Commons by Attribution 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Basically that means you can do whatever you want with my material as long as you give credit back. A lot of folks chose to also throw in the "No commercial derivatives" in there as well, but in my opinion that excludes small/one-person business as well, and I don't want to do that for my works. If there were a way to legally just exclude large corporations from using my work, I'd be all over it!

[Bone-A Lisa]

I do everything as Creative Commons by Attribution 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Basically that means you can do whatever you want with my material as long as you give credit back. A lot of folks chose to also throw in the "No commercial derivatives" in there as well, but in my opinion that excludes small/one-person business as well, and I don't want to do that for my works. If there were a way to legally just exclude large corporations from using my work, I'd be all over it!

I'm also using Create Commons by Attribution, but I am using the Non-Commercial one and Share Alike as well to make sure adaptations are under the same license. The AI stuff has me all worked up that I want to be clear that they aren't allowed to use it lol. I know it's not going to stop them to be honest, but I would rather make it clear that I am not allowing them to do so. In the odd chance that someone small wants to use my stuff, odds are that it would be under fair use anyway, so I'm not too worried about it.

[starbreaker]

I used to use CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, but given their current stance on Fair Use and Generative AI I'm not comfortable using a CC license for my writing.

I'm tempted to apply the terms of the Anti-Capitalist Software License instead. Never mind that it was written for use with software.

[Bone-A Lisa]

I used to use CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, but given their current stance on Fair Use and Generative AI I'm not comfortable using a CC license for my writing.

Ooof... I did not know this. I guess it's time for me to find a new license because that is ridiculous.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

Ooof... I did not know this. I guess it's time for me to find a new license because that is ridiculous.

Given that the whole open-source movement is somewhat tech-optimistic and technocratic, this comes as no surprise for me. The licenses practically allows for practically any use, including things that are - in my book - worse than AI. I use GPL (I believe 3) and CC-BY-SA 4(?) for most of my works, since I believe that the benefits outweigh the problems in the end - public domain holds the same issues (without the benefit of getting upstream input from those who use your stuff), and reserving my rights totally would feel to restrictive :).

[starbreaker]

Given that the whole open-source movement is somewhat tech-optimistic and technocratic, this comes as no surprise for me.

As somebody who works in tech, I have long thought that the disdain for liberal arts and the humanities among techies in particular and STEM people in general seems to have made a lot of us useful idiots for corporate America and the military-industrial complex.

It would help explain why so many in my trade are resistant to the mere idea of unionization or forming a professional organization for collective bargaining and ethics reinforcement.

[Bone-A Lisa]

Given that the whole open-source movement is somewhat tech-optimistic and technocratic, this comes as no surprise for me. The licenses practically allows for practically any use, including things that are - in my book - worse than AI. I use GPL (I believe 3) and CC-BY-SA 4(?) for most of my works, since I believe that the benefits outweigh the problems in the end - public domain holds the same issues (without the benefit of getting upstream input from those who use your stuff), and reserving my rights totally would feel to restrictive :).

This is the tough one for me, I am a firm believer in open source, and think the idea of art being open for everyone is something I generally agree with, and in the ideal world in my head I can see all art being in the public domain. But in this world where large corporations are already taking advantage of art they aren't even allowed to be using, I feel like I want to at least try and protect my art from that.

IDK, it's a topic I've thought about a lot and am not 100% sure how I feel about it.

As somebody who works in tech, I have long thought that the disdain for liberal arts and the humanities among techies in particular and STEM people in general seems to have made a lot of us useful idiots for corporate America and the military-industrial complex.

This is such a tragic reality. A little off-topic, but I'm in tech too, and there are so many people in it who have no interest in creative endeavors, who have never once in their adult life been interested in being artistic, who all of a sudden have "well formulated" opinions on what is best for artists because a new fangled tech-hype product is threatening their ability to make a living by "democratizing art creation".

[starbreaker]

This is such a tragic reality. A little off-topic, but I'm in tech too, and there are so many people in it who have no interest in creative endeavors, who have never once in their adult life been interested in being artistic, who all of a sudden have "well formulated" opinions on what is best for artists because a new fangled tech-hype product is threatening their ability to make a living by "democratizing art creation".

I'm kind of in between here. I started out as a musician and became a writer, but got into tech because it seemed a better day job than cleaning toilets. (I should have become an electrician instead; they've got a union.) So I know that I don't need a LLM, or a computer to do my writing for me. I've got something like a LLM in my head, along with taste, discernment, and the understanding that one should not use other people's writing without attribution.

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

This is the tough one for me, I am a firm believer in open source, and think the idea of art being open for everyone is something I generally agree with, and in the ideal world in my head I can see all art being in the public domain. But in this world where large corporations are already taking advantage of art they aren't even allowed to be using, I feel like I want to at least try and protect my art from that.

IDK, it's a topic I've thought about a lot and am not 100% sure how I feel about it.

Hi @Bone-A Lisa .
I don't believe that you, as an artist, aren't responsible who quotes you or builds upon your stuff. There were vile persons who performed and viewed Shakespeare, read Kleist, played Claude Debussy, whistled melodies from Carmen, enjoyed to look at The Tower of blue Horses, or bought works of Basquiat; sometimes while doing vile things. And still, the world is a better place with these things in existence.

I think that you are right that open source is a good thing, and the right thing to do - and while I think that the open source movements idea to save the world with licenses and technical advance can't work out, I believe that doing good art (and, as in your case, allowing other well meaning persons to built upon and use it) is a way of moving things into the right direction. I will surely check yours out :).

As somebody who works in tech, I have long thought that the disdain for liberal arts and the humanities among techies in particular and STEM people in general seems to have made a lot of us useful idiots for corporate America and the military-industrial complex.

It would help explain why so many in my trade are resistant to the mere idea of unionization or forming a professional organization for collective bargaining and ethics reinforcement.

Working in a non-tech area that is based on an eclectic profession that heavily relies on humanities and social studies, I can assure you that many of my colleagues have absolutely no clue about the theories their work relies on.
Most of our modern technique on the other hand is also heavily influenced by the humanities: There is a continuity between the development of Cybernetics, System Theory, and modern IT, and you can assume that the "top notch"-developers and Silicon Valley tycoons are well educated in these fields. Brand, whose "Whole Earth Catalogue" was an important influence for those who later took control over the computer landscape had studied art, and philosophy was discussed there.

The modern proletariat shouldn't be blamed for not being firm about humanities or philosophy; the hegemonic system never had an interest in teaching them. Why would it? Limiting information and education is a way of keeping people under control. The columns of power would collide if everybody knew about Marx, Bakunin, Pierre Bordieu, Deleuze, and Adorno.