xellandria:

tevruden:

luckyowl21:

thispreciousthing:

So a free tool called GLAZE has been developed that allows artists to cloak their artwork so it can’t be mimicked by AI art tools.

AI art bros are big mad about it.

Hey about GLAZE:

While it does seem like a pretty solid way to protect artists’ works from scalpers and AI databases, there’s a lot of issues in regards to its source code and it’s EULA.

In regards to its license agreement, it indicates that Glaze owns the rights to your works because of it adding that “layer” for protection because it’s using Stable Diffusion AI’s license agreement, which is uhhh Not Good. (These threads put it pretty succinctly . Granted the later link is the worst possible implications but given the rise of really shitty behaviour when it comes to AI art and how licensing works, it’s best to keep that in mind in order to protect yourself)

As well, it’s recently come out that this software is using the exact same code as DiffusionBee (effectively going against GPL license), and while it’s good that they’ve acknowledged it and their working to fix that… I dunno stealing the same code as the very thing that scalps artists’ works leaves a bad taste.

All in all, I do want methods and ways to protect artists and creators from getting their work stolen by AI scalpers, but for now we still need to remain vigilant.

You can basically ignore the parent as:

  1. Glaze’s EULA is literally right here and doesn’t actually say any of that.
  2. The second EULA in there is for the stable diffusion *model* and not glaze and talks about licenses for derivatives of the model and section six *EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS* rights over the output.

I manage to figure this out from my phone. Why anyone would believe some rando on Twitter I don’t even know.

And they deleted the twitter thread so who know what what they actually even said

In addition, if you check that “exact same code” twitter thread (linking it again in case you missed it), you’ll see that:

  1. They did go against the GPL license, which stipulates that you have to release all the source code required for a thing to run.  They are not going to release the source code for the back end, aka the part that does the work and that you as the user don’t interface with, because doing so would make it infinitely easier to counter the anti-AI GLAZEing the software does. The front-end (the user interface, presumably–all the buttons and knobs and whistles that you personally interact with to use the software) was the part that uses the same code as DiffusionBee.
  2. Note the past tense: was.  In that same twitter thread, Ben Zhao says that Glaze Beta 2 is now available with a new front-end that was coded from scratch, and that the rest of the code was scoured to make sure it didn’t include any additional GPL code remnants (because again, to use GPL-licensed code would require them to open source their code, which would let the AI tech bros more easily develop a counter to the Glaze defense system.)  That tweet is dated 7:43am March 18 2023 (a full day before luckyowl21′s post, which is dated 9:28am March 19 2023; pacific timezone for both timestamps.)

I completely understand being wary and skeptical of new tech, especially anything related to AI art (for or against), but this is a prime example of being needlessly incendiary and crying wolf.  Glaze did not and has not stolen code, the software owners are not claiming to own the rights to artwork you put through their program, and the problems with the GPL license were fixed before this post about them violating it was made.