[Feature] Textual credit for images

Bugs & Features
1

I’d like to suggest a feature mentioned in passing in a previous suggestion; image credits.

The Mucklet terms specify that credit should be given for other people’s content:

Respecting others’ rights
You may not provide content that infringes on someone elses [sic.] intellectual property. If you use an image, or add content based on someone elses work, make sure you have the rights to do so. And give credits where credit is due.

Currently I do this to the extent possible, and I have seen a few characters doing something similar, but overall there is a tendency to say “credit to the [unnamed] artist”, possibly with an offer to take it down. This isn’t fair to the artist or photographer concerned and not in line with the terms; and doesn’t clarify when a work is made by or for the character owner.

One reason for this may be that there is no default way to supply this credit. I suggest text input fields on image submission or perhaps as part of the room/character profile editor (though this would reinforce the already non-ideal “one image per profile” limit) for creator name, work name and license, with associated URL fields, all optional.

There might also be checkboxes for artist or commissioner. This way you could say it’s a commission and identify the artist, but not the work if it wasn’t public or didn’t want to out yourself as the player behind the character - or vice versa if the artist desired anonymity.

This would ideally replace what I currently use for credit, along the lines of:

--🖼️ [David Revoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Revoy): _[Tree house](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012-08-24_Tree-house_by-David-Revoy.jpg)_. [CC-BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).--

This renders as: :framed_picture: David Revoy: Tree house. CC-BY.

Or in Mucklet:

Credit
Credit625×139 10.5 KB

Because I put this at the bottom of the description I use an icon like :framed_picture: or :camera: to indicate what it refers to (or :input_latin_uppercase: when credit is due for text). This may not be necessary if displayed directly beneath the image. (If space is low I just use “BY” for the license, or “BY-NC-SA”, etc.)

I could also see it as an info line beneath the expanded view on-click, although there should be some indication of credit on the default view too, if not a line of text then an icon/mask.

5 Likes
2

I’m going to open the can of worms and ask the following: How would I be able to tell if an AI image is using art properly and with consent?

I’m all for adding a by-line for your art, but the wording of current rules makes most art unusable.

1 Like
3

A lot of people do use AI-generated artwork. Personally, I try to find an existing image first, ideally one under a free license. I see many others doing at least the first of these but often without attribution; this is an attempt to address crediting of those images in particular.

Depending on where you are, AI art either does not count as a copy (further details), or does (if you generate the exact lyrics); and so doesn’t require consent/credit as it is non-infringing (notwithstanding trademark issues), or does to what is likely an impossible degree beyond mentioning a model which provides a list of sources (compare your lifetime browser history).

If you do want to credit AI art, I’d suggest that the model and version used is a good start.

4

It’s this part that is the issue. Legal ruling aside, AI is based on someone else’s work. So … that’s a problem.

5

Yes, but (LoRAs and other exceptions aside) only in the sense that an artist draws like other artists they have seen over the years. AI models don’t keep the original training material. They record something akin to “how do you see a lion that isn’t actually there in a cloud?”, based on repeatedly removing randomly added noise from a zillion images of lions.

I honestly think it’s more of a problem in this case to reproduce exactly the same image that a single artist created without crediting them or seeking their permission. If nothing else, that is specifically based on some-one’s work, not everyone’s.

6

I’m not disagreeing with anything you said. That is how I feel as well. However, that doesn’t change that the way the rule is written now, this isn’t clear.

We want to target art used without consent, or at least give credit, where it’s due, so target that. Vague rules lead to vague enforcement.

7

I think that the only correct option is to install a checkbox along with the credit line.

[( ) Check if using AI-generated imagery]

As to the question of ‘consent’? It’s better to assume AI art does not have any artist’s actual consent. All AI image models are trained on data that was never consented to being used for the purpose.

1 Like