If you are the person taking the pictures of the objects, you would own the copyright to the image. You could license the images however you wanted. There are a few exceptions to this, where you being the photographer would not make the images legally safe:
A person's likeness - basically, if there are people in the image and they are recognizable, you do not own the rights to their likeness. This is especially true for celebrities, since so many people could recognize their face and their likeness is what they get paid for.
Trademarks - taking pictures of the giant Coca-Cola sign in Times Square subjects your picture to Coca-Cola's trademark. Similarly, taking a screenshot of The Legend Of Zelda gameplay doesn't allow you to share the screenshot under whatever license you want since the characters displayed in that screenshot are trademarked by Nintendo. Could you use the screenshot under Fair-Use? Sure! But you couldn't share it under a specific license of your choosing.
Restricted locations - Laws differ on this from country to country, but in the US, it is illegal to take pictures of prisons, high-security military installations, etc. Disseminating such photographs would likewise be disallowed.
That's already possible. Any tag can be used to exclude submissions from a search.
...Also, I don't think the suggestion was that AI-assisted submissions are only allowed to have one tag: "AI Assisted". I think the suggestion was that the only requirement we place upon AI submissions is that they must include such a tag along with any other tag that is relevant. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the suggestion either way. Just seeking clarification.
I don't see any need for special handling of AI assisted artwork submissions as far as "drowning out" other artwork goes. Any user who floods the site with multiple rapid submissions already has their submissions squelched from appearing on the front page temporarily.
If submissions of AI assisted art are "trivial" (anyone could use the AI to make the same thing in just a few minutes) then, again, those submissions are treated the same as other "trivial" submissions. Any time someone draws a crude stick figure of limited usefulness and uploads it, it gets evaluated for how much effort it is saving anyone and will be taken down if it's quicker to make your own than to download that guy's version.
However, keeping it clear which submissions are AI assisted is important, in my opinion. Beyond just tagging something as being AI-generated or AI assisted, there are very specific Terms of Use for the various tools out there. Not all of them are compatible with the open licenses we support. For that reason, I will insist upon any such submission including a link to the specific version of AI tool that was used so that everyone can be confident the allowed usage of output will not get anyone in trouble.
It would be nice to add the checkbox or some additional prompting in the submission process for this. I'm not sure how feasible that is under the current geriatric site framework, though.
Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
If you are the person taking the pictures of the objects, you would own the copyright to the image. You could license the images however you wanted. There are a few exceptions to this, where you being the photographer would not make the images legally safe:
I hope that helps. :)
Delightful!
Pretty amazing character expressiveness for only being 4 pixels across.
That's already possible. Any tag can be used to exclude submissions from a search.
...Also, I don't think the suggestion was that AI-assisted submissions are only allowed to have one tag: "AI Assisted". I think the suggestion was that the only requirement we place upon AI submissions is that they must include such a tag along with any other tag that is relevant. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the suggestion either way. Just seeking clarification.
From your youtube channel to OGA? Yes, definitely.
From OGA to your youtube channel? Depends on where you plan to add it, but probably, yes.
ATMANAN
I don't see any need for special handling of AI assisted artwork submissions as far as "drowning out" other artwork goes. Any user who floods the site with multiple rapid submissions already has their submissions squelched from appearing on the front page temporarily.
If submissions of AI assisted art are "trivial" (anyone could use the AI to make the same thing in just a few minutes) then, again, those submissions are treated the same as other "trivial" submissions. Any time someone draws a crude stick figure of limited usefulness and uploads it, it gets evaluated for how much effort it is saving anyone and will be taken down if it's quicker to make your own than to download that guy's version.
However, keeping it clear which submissions are AI assisted is important, in my opinion. Beyond just tagging something as being AI-generated or AI assisted, there are very specific Terms of Use for the various tools out there. Not all of them are compatible with the open licenses we support. For that reason, I will insist upon any such submission including a link to the specific version of AI tool that was used so that everyone can be confident the allowed usage of output will not get anyone in trouble.
It would be nice to add the checkbox or some additional prompting in the submission process for this. I'm not sure how feasible that is under the current geriatric site framework, though.
How would you use it if it were a .png?
Done.
Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
Pages