deepinsight
Licensing and how to NOT violate?
I made a post earlier but it just devolved into blame and arguments. I am not asking about Olivios situation. I am asking how to use this without licensing issues? So don't use Roop, Reactor, ect? Insight approved alternatives? Give credit to insight face in a video? Is the issue with monetized videos? Don't use a famous face? Is it the models or the code that's the issue
Just follow https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface#license. If you follow our license and use it only for academic purposes, then using celebrity photos is not a problem either. Many research papers use celebrity photos as image examples in their demonstrations.
Ok so if you upload a video and the channel is not monetized it's ok? If the channel later becomes monetized then the video would need to be taken down? Just curious but unless the video said they used inswapper how would anyone even know? Thanks
Hard to say, but try to avoid involving keywords like deepfake, NSFW, and content related to celebrities, and there will be absolutely no problem.
Sadly InsightFace are trying to assume control over something they do not have the rights or power of. The licence does not state that deepfake, NSFW, and content related to celebrities cannot be mentioned. They have implemented this after the fact which totally goes against the community and they are abusing the youtube flag system. Youtube have been notified of the breach. I hope everyone else does the same.
Hard to say, but try to avoid involving keywords like deepfake, NSFW, and content related to celebrities, and there will be absolutely no problem.
Thanks for the reply. "Hard to say" seems difficult and leaves much gray area. Some simple do's and don't would suffice. Don't use keywords or don't make celebrity or NSFW content? What about if a video is not monetized at upload but then becomes monetized? Is that problem? Should insight or inswapper be mentioned in the credits? How about people using discord and midjourney? Same rules or is that different? Thanks
Hard to say, but try to avoid involving keywords like deepfake, NSFW, and content related to celebrities, and there will be absolutely no problem.
Thanks for the reply. "Hard to say" seems difficult and leaves much gray area. Some simple do's and don't would suffice. Don't use keywords or don't make celebrity or NSFW content? What about if a video is not monetized at upload but then becomes monetized? Is that problem? Should insight or inswapper be mentioned in the credits? How about people using discord and midjourney? Same rules or is that different? Thanks
Although I believe that our actions are legally sound, it seems that many people disagree and have cast us in the light of being oppressors, which is contrary to the facts. Therefore, we are not planning to file complaints against similar videos for the time being.
Hard to say, but try to avoid involving keywords like deepfake, NSFW, and content related to celebrities, and there will be absolutely no problem.
Thanks for the reply. "Hard to say" seems difficult and leaves much gray area. Some simple do's and don't would suffice. Don't use keywords or don't make celebrity or NSFW content? What about if a video is not monetized at upload but then becomes monetized? Is that problem? Should insight or inswapper be mentioned in the credits? How about people using discord and midjourney? Same rules or is that different? Thanks
Although I believe that our actions are legally sound, it seems that many people disagree and have cast us in the light of being oppressors, which is contrary to the facts. Therefore, we are not planning to file complaints against similar videos for the time being.
So in other words. you've admitted you balls up. There is nothing wrong in messing up. If you had just held your hands up and said "Yeah we got that one wrong sorry" it would have been fine. But you doubled down on it, you then insulted people, mocked people. Too little too late
Although I believe that our actions are legally sound, it seems that many people disagree and have cast us in the light of being oppressors, which is contrary to the facts. Therefore, we are not planning to file complaints against similar videos for the time being.
Thanks clarifying.. I'm personally not trying to cast you guys in a negative light. Hope it didn't come across that way. I am just trying to understand moving forward. I don't have any monetized videos using this tech so I don't have a horse in this race. Last thing about "for the time being". What exactly does this mean? It's fine now but people may have issues in a couple of months or when you guys feel like it or when some outside entities potentially pressure you when you lawyer up or what? It would suck to spend time making something then later on you guys have a change of heart for whatever reason. Thanks again
If we do not update the License (which is highly unlikely, but if we do, you'll see it on the github homepage), we will not file complaints against YouTube videos of a tutorial nature, starting from today.
If we do not update the License (which is highly unlikely, but if we do, you'll see it on the github homepage), we will not file complaints against YouTube videos of a tutorial nature, starting from today.
YouTube is the biggest but it's not the only platform. What about other platforms? What about non tutorial videos? Sorry for all the questions but everything still feels vague. Thanks
Yes, include all platforms. Regarding tutorial videos, I think you can easily distinguish them. Here are two possible examples of illegal non-tutorial videos: 1) Posting a video claiming they can use inswapper for paid projects; 2) Using the published video to promote or introduce companies and/or products that illegally use the inswapper model for commercial services.
And you plan to also remove any current strikes on videos too yes? Or do those still stand?
Yes, include all platforms. Regarding tutorial videos, I think you can easily distinguish them. Here are two possible examples of non-tutorial videos: 1) Posting a video claiming they can use inswapper for paid projects; 2) Using the published video to promote or introduce companies and/or products that illegally use the inswapper model for commercial services.
So credit insight/inswapper and we're good on monetized non-tutorial content?
Yes, include all platforms. Regarding tutorial videos, I think you can easily distinguish them. Here are two possible examples of non-tutorial videos: 1) Posting a video claiming they can use inswapper for paid projects; 2) Using the published video to promote or introduce companies and/or products that illegally use the inswapper model for commercial services.
So credit insight/inswapper and we're good on monetized non-tutorial content?
Publishing videos like the two types I mentioned above is clearly a violation, regardless of whether credit is given or not.
Publishing videos like the two types I mentioned above is clearly a violation, regardless of whether credit is given or not.
I thought you were giving examples of non tutorial videos that were permitted. I was asking what non tutorial videos are OK. Thanks
@nttstar Say I take a photo of a male and female santa on a photo set for Christmas and want to allow people to face swap their face with those pictures that I own the rights to for Christmas celebrations and I am not using the model for any illegal activities, how would I go about getting a license for this kind of commercial use?
@ashleykleynhans Here's the official response: You can only obtain commercial use authorization for the results through our Picsi.Ai application service. Any use and output involving the inswapper_128 open-source model is not permitted for commercial use.
And there it is. The real reason why all this happened in the first place. So they could try to monopolize monetization.
I can't think of any reasonable non-tutorial videos at the moment.
Seems more like a tailor made reaction to a specific issue. I don't care about Olivios situation but he makes tutorials so now you say that's ok but nothing else. So only making tutorials to teach people to use something so they can only make more tutorials because that's all that's OK seems counter intuitive. What about the 3rd party issue like Roop and Reactor, etc? Either people can use it or they can't. It's that simple. Things like action against NSFW or Celebrity or whatever improper use would come from the respective entities with the issue like YouTube or the celebrity or the whoever and not from the creator of the tool.
As I've already mentioned above, our legal basis for complaining about Olivio's video is solid, otherwise, Google wouldn't have easily allowed our request to go through. The reason I said we won't file complaints from today onwards is because users or practitioners, for various reasons (such as unfamiliarity with open-source licenses, being misled, etc.), might perceive us as bullying, and I don't want to spend more time responding to so many questions like today's. I have a lot of works to do.
As I've already mentioned above, our legal basis for complaining about Olivio's video is solid, otherwise, Google wouldn't have easily allowed our request to go through. The reason I said we won't file complaints from today onwards is because users or practitioners, for various reasons (such as unfamiliarity with open-source licenses, being misled, etc.), might perceive us as bullying, and I don't want to spend more time responding to so many questions like today's. I have a lot of works to do.
It is bullying. You've already stated that as long as people use insightface for tutorial reasons you won't file any strikes. Olivio did use it for tutorial reasons and now you're saying it's valid.
SO which is it. Tutorials are either totally fine as you claim, or they aren't. You cannot have it both ways and expect people to be cool with it.
If I also had 200,000 followers, I could create a video with a completely different perspective and prohibit Olivio from replying below the video (just as he has already done to me). That would be a true case of the strong overpowering the weak.
As I've already mentioned above, our legal basis for complaining about Olivio's video is solid, otherwise, Google wouldn't have easily allowed our request to go through. The reason I said we won't file complaints from today onwards is because users or practitioners, for various reasons (such as unfamiliarity with open-source licenses, being misled, etc.), might perceive us as bullying, and I don't want to spend more time responding to so many questions like today's. I have a lot of works to do.
Like I said, I don't care about Olivios situation. I only mentioned that you caved to the pressure of tutorials only because that is Olivios specific situation. It's seems all you did was muddy the water versus giving a clear yay or nay. I am saying how are tutorial videos all that's ok. Like if you show the install instructions for 2 seconds after the video then bam, it's a tutorial 😂
If I also had 200,000 followers, I could create a video with a completely different perspective and prohibit Olivio from replying below the video (just as he has already done to me). That would be a true case of the strong overpowering the weak.
Now you're just making stuff up. You can freely post and you know you can. You really need to learn when to quit. You made progress by saying people are now welcome to post tutorials, then you said you had valid grounds to strike tutorials, now you're back to falsehoods and insults. You need a PR person because you have just single-handedly screwed up your entire business because of greed.
As I've already mentioned above, our legal basis for complaining about Olivio's video is solid, otherwise, Google wouldn't have easily allowed our request to go through. The reason I said we won't file complaints from today onwards is because users or practitioners, for various reasons (such as unfamiliarity with open-source licenses, being misled, etc.), might perceive us as bullying, and I don't want to spend more time responding to so many questions like today's. I have a lot of works to do.
Like I said, I don't care about Olivios situation. I only mentioned that you caved to the pressure of tutorials only because that is Olivios specific situation. It's seems all you did was muddy the water versus giving a clear yay or nay. I am saying how are tutorial videos all that's ok. Like if you show the install instructions for 2 seconds after the video then bam, it's a tutorial 😂
Echo at this point I would just throw Insightface to the curb where it belongs mate. Why would you even want to promote them anyway at this point.
Echo at this point I would just throw Insightface to the curb where it belongs mate. Why would you even want to promote them anyway at this point.
Like I said I don't have any monetized videos much less any using inswapper but it's just for future reference assuming these posts don't get deleted. I have other face swap options so that's fine. I just like clarification is all, especially when legal actions start potentially getting thrown around
Echo at this point I would just throw Insightface to the curb where it belongs mate. Why would you even want to promote them anyway at this point.
Like I said I don't have any monetized videos much less any using inswapper but it's just for future reference assuming these posts don't get deleted. I have other face swap options so that's fine. I just like clarification is all, especially when legal actions start potentially getting thrown around
I imagine they will at some point be deleted as there has been so much said that contradicts themselves. This is the issue when someone is lying. They forget what they previously said
@ashleykleynhans Here's the official response: You can only obtain commercial use authorization for the results through our Picsi.Ai application service. Any use and output involving the inswapper_128 open-source model is not permitted for commercial use.
@nttstar What about the models in buffalo_1.zip? By the way, there are YouTubers who have auto installation scripts for roop/face swap/inswapper model on Patreon. These people are directly profiting from your work unlike the ones publishing tutorials on YouTube.
@ashleykleynhans Here's the official response: You can only obtain commercial use authorization for the results through our Picsi.Ai application service. Any use and output involving the inswapper_128 open-source model is not permitted for commercial use.
@nttstar What about the models in buffalo_1.zip? By the way, there are YouTubers who have auto installation scripts for roop/face swap/inswapper model on Patreon. These people are directly profiting from your work unlike the ones publishing tutorials on YouTube.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think selling installation scripts is a direct profit from the software. This script is not using the installed software, it just automates the installation process.
