On August 18th, the Licensing Team made a change to the SCP Wiki's Image Use Policy which provisionally allows for some AI generated art content for use on the site. This change was made without the typical announcements and public declarations that normally accompany such things not because of an intention to deceive or hide this change, but rather as part of an effort at a more 'controlled' rollout.
Multiple discussion threads and informative actions should have been taken as part of this effort, and we have much to answer for both internally and externally on this front. However, the purpose of this thread is not a post-mortem for the above change.
For the last several months the Licensing Team has been evaluating the legal questions surrounding the use of AI generated art. This has included a thorough review of our own license, thorough reviews of licenses from AI providers on a per-case-basis, discussion with the Creative Commons community, and multiple stages of evaluation with legal counsel.
After thorough consideration, the Licensing Team has developed a list of requirements which it believes are necessary for an AI-Generated Art Provider (AGAP) to be compatible with the Site License (CC-BY-SA 3.0):
- (1) The ability to attribute a particular image to a particular AI generation event.
- (2) The ability to attribute it to an individual user (to avoid disputes of ownership).
- (3) Explicit assignment of ownership of a generated image to the person who generated the image.
- (4) A built-in filter or moderator team to prevent the engine from generating illegal imagery such as child pornography.
- (5) A model using an image abstraction protocol, rather than image difference or image variance.
- (6) Even IF it meets all the above, the training data needed to be compliant, too.
To Expand on (5), the difference is essentially that the AI cannot just combine images; it has to have a model that breaks the image data down into something else, and then uses abstract relationships to fully procedurally generate a brand new image.
To expand on (6), Creative Commons suggested that this wasn't necessary, but the License Team insists on this requirement due to the legally untested nature of AGAPs. Many AGAPs do not release what models or training data they use. Because of this, it becomes difficult if not impossible to prove that the training data itself is compliant with our license.
At present, Licensing has identified one AGAP which meets the above criteria and is therefore likely to be compatible with our site license, and that is the version of MidJourney available via a paid subscription. The Licensing Team makes no formal endorsement for MidJourney as a service and plainly states we have no relationship whatsoever with either MidJourney or its related business, we reiterate we have simply identified its likely compliance per the above.
Having said that, the decision the Licensing Team was empowered to make was whether or not there are AGAPs which are likely to be compatible with both our Image Use Policy and the Site License. It is not the Licensing Team's sole discretion as to whether or not this type of content should be allowed - that is to say "an content created by an AGAP" and not just via MidJourney.
The purpose of this thread is to collect staff and community thoughts about whether to allow AGAPs for use on site, and if so, how to ensure such a matter is implemented both ethically and with support and consideration for members of the art community.
I created this discussion with the assistance and input of CityToast. I am one of two current Admin Contacts for the Licensing Team, and CityToast is the Vice-Captain (and currently acting Captain). Me and my previous vacation plans appreciate everyone's patience in allowing me to delay this discussion until today. As this topic is quite large, requires community input, and does not propose a specific policy for immediate consideration, do not feel constrained by the typical "7 day" limit.
This is open to all staff.
(account deleted)