Should such a clause not be added as standard today, similar to the “salvatory clause,” provided that the content is not intended for the widest possible distribution?
Should such a clause not be added as standard today, similar to the “salvatory clause,” provided that the content is not intended for the widest possible distribution?
No clause is technically needed as you own full rights to your content by default but just like if you put something there explicitly these companies are ignoring it and the current governments are facilitating it.
The answer is legally you could and people are but these companies are just very willing to commit crimes
Yes, I agree. Explicitly excluding AI training in your terms of use or license probably won’t deter most companies, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to include this as an addition, since a clear contractual prohibition would likely:
For example, when selling a book, you could require explicit consent (checkbox opt-in or similar) to strengthen enforceability. Enforcement would still be difficult, of course, but an explicit clause might at least have a certain deterrent effect and, if necessary, create additional leverage in court, I think.
Somebody already told you this is redundant. It doesn’t ‘create additional leverage’. Copyright law exists and by default grants you all these privileges. Ignorance of the law doesn’t allow someone to break it.
The problem is even if you live in a communist utopia, a lawsuit still costs time and headaches. That is the real question. Are you willing to go to court to enforce your rights? If yes, then that’s all you need to do, because you’re already the rights owner.
Yeah, the real answer is that they’d just ignore it- because even though what they’re doing is flagrant copyright abuse, unless you’ve got an army of lawyers like Disney, you’ll go bankrupt going after them.
What you can do is play dirty. If you have your own website, make an AI Tar Pit. Make your website not just useless to AI, but actively malicious towards it.