‹text› method allows anyone to change the font as well as to translate the text.
‹path› method is “embedded” (if you will), and thus, not translatable and the font design is fixed.
It's licensed under #CreativeCommons#BySA 4.0 because the source file, in PNG format, is under the same license. I actually prefer to release it under CC0/CCzero (a.k.a. Public Domain). Although in some jurisdictions, it can only be Public Domain because there's nothing artistic about an ISO-based keyboard layout.
An #NGO in #Japan has been dealing with weeks of criticism & turmoil for having a foreign logo in a presentation they submitted to the government.
The reason? Essentially, copying & pasting of copyrighted images & not realizing they were watermarked. It could have been avoided w/ some basic #data and #security practices.
What do the Prime Minister of France, the founder of #CreativeCommons, the COs of #RedHat and @opensuse and thousands of children have in common? They all love 💕 "Ada & Zangemann - A Tale of Software, Skateboards, and Raspberry Ice Cream"
💥 We want to go create an animated movie about Ada’s story!
🚀 To produce the movie in English, French, German, and Italian will cost us €40,000. Your donation will make a difference for many children who will be inspired by Ada!
I feel disgusting saying this, but until #CreativeCommons gets their heads out of their asses or the "AI" bubble finally bursts, ALL of my #art assets, visual, audio or otherwise, will have to be copyrighted with all rights reserved. As far as I can tell, GPL and its derivatives are strictly designed for code, as well as the BSD, MIT and all other #OpenSource or #copyleft licenses. If I'm wrong, I will consider those.
Not likely in the US. I personally believe that it's unlikely any of the copyright claims against AI generators will stand.
If Google Books -a web site that literally copied full copyrighted works and allowed people to search through them and showed them actual images of the search results- was deemed to not be in violation of copyright law, then I just don't see how AI systems are going to be found in violation.
Ultimately, if just analyzing and learning from prior works and using that knowledge to create derivative works is copyright violation, then literally every single human that has ever drawn or written anything at all is also in violation.
Hats off to the author, you don't see that kind of, uh, skillful rhetoric chicanery every day. Like "generative AI doesn't compete with artists because artists are not in the data market". 😬