sunconuregender

left is alt flag, right is main flag!

(ART OF THE CONURE IS NOT OURS. WE GOOGLED 'SUN CONURE VECTOR' LOL)

sunconuregender is a xenogender relating to sun conures. it may feel playful, birdlike, or noisy!

[ID: Two versions of the same flag, with five horizontal stripes of: Teal, dark green, yellow, orange, and red. The first version of the flag has just the stripes, the second has a grey circle in the center, with a stylized, lineless painting of a sun conure: a small parrot with a red and orange chest, a red head and back, and wings that fade from yellow to green to blue. End ID.]

Plain text:

(Art of the conure is not ours. We googled 'sun conure vector' lol)

Image source for the conure. Made by @runeowldraws

A quick google search looks like a website that sells vector art might have stolen the art originally, but it's no longer there.

@nostalgiagender looks like you might have used stolen art by accident, (assuming Runeowldraws isn't the one who listed this one the vector site) so I made this alternate version for you with a public domain painting I just made :)

[ID: The same flag as above, but with the conure in the center replaced with a more detailed digital painting of a sun conure with stark lighting, sitting on a simply painted branch. It has a red-orange face, a yellow neck, green wings splashed with yellow, which fade to teal at the tips. End ID.]

runeowldraws

Oh, thank you @describe-things for the mention. What a throwback piece! I'm no stranger to having art stolen for various stock sites (you're right in that wherever it ended up wasn't from me), but in this case being found for harmless personal use I really don't mind.

That being said, it's a good teachable moment for @nostalgiagender that "not my art, got it off google images" is not sufficient credit when you source pictures for any project.

Cheers!

runeowldraws reblogged

aydenburd

galvanizedfriend

The US Copyright Office is opening a public comment period around AI

US Copyright Office wants to hear what people think about AI and copyright

People have until October 18th to comment.

The Verge

American friends! The US Copyright Office (which we know exerts huuuge influence in how these things are treated elsewhere) wants to hear opinions on copyright and AI.

"The US Copyright Office is opening a public comment period around AI and copyright issues beginning August 30th as the agency figures out how to approach the subject."

We can assume that the opposing side will definitely be using all of their lobbying power towards widespread AI use, so this is a very good chance to let them know your thoughts on AI and how art and creative content of all kinds should be protected.

ri-writing

One of the things they’re asking for comment on is the use of copyrighted works to train AI. The Copyright Office really will read what you write. If lots of people write in that they oppose allowing generative AI to train on copyrighted works, that could encourage the Copyright Office to also find that using copyrighted works to train AI engines should not be allowed. Courts routinely look at Copyright Office publications while interpreting the Copyright Act, so this is an opportunity to actually have a say in the issue.

You might be wondering how you should express that letting AI train on people’s copyrighted works is bad in a way that the Copyright Office will take seriously. The simple answer is: Be polite and be honest. If you’ve been a victim, you can share how you felt when you discovered your work had been used to train AI without your permission. If you think authors and artists deserve not to have their work used without their permission, you can say that. Be truthful. Don’t present something as a fact if it is not. Avoid hyperbole, inflammatory accusations, and foul language. It is okay to say you are upset, concerned, and/or hurt, but do it without calling someone else a “fucker.”

If you have no idea what to say, but want to comment, I've got some suggestions on how to write a comment under the cut.

muffinlance

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Please take a moment out of your day, on behalf of all authors, artists, and terrible bosses looking to replace human creativity with ultra-cheap good-enough alternatives to comment. And I don't generally ask for reblogs, but yeah. Do that too. But the most important part is commenting. Doesn't have to be perfect, just copy and paste from above if you want to, or write a heartfelt two-sentence "artists and writers should give consent and receive compensation to be included in a training set, and images and writing resulting from AI should not be eligible for copyright without significant further human manipulation/improvement of the generated image." Which is my own current stance on this issue.

I've seen two links floating on the reblogs for where to comment officially at, which is confusing

At regulations.gov: here

At the copyright office: here

BOTH OF THESE ULTIMATELY LINK TO THE SAME COMMENT FORM (on regulations.gov), so just to preemptively clear up that confusion, follow either link they're both fine

duckprintspress

Here's what I wrote on behalf of the Press:

While I think there are potentially useful applications of learned language model text and model-generated artwork, I think the current models built on unethically sourced content, in clear violation of the copyrights held by the original creators of the works, is the "poison pill" that destroys any utility these models might have had. Until models are ethically built, and the use of them a required disclosure (for example, articles must say "llms have been used to generate part or all of this text"), and the acknowledgement made that these model-generated creations are not art, cannot be copyrighted as art, and have no place being treated as a replacement for art (but rather as a supplement), there's no way llms and art generators can be allowed to grow. It's my opinion that the current existing models need to be destroyed, and replaced by models built using ethically sourced datasets.

We CAN have an influence on policy. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.