Your recent activity regarding flagging youtubers videos.

[tpcdaz]

Since you deleted your nonsense reply I'll put it back here for you. Since you claim to want to be transparent with the community I find you blocking and deleting people just adds fuel to the fire. I will answer your reply here

Now I know you will delete this as thats what you do. Despite claims of transparancy and wanting to work with the community you try to delete your unlawful actions. So I will repost this every single time you delete so people know the truth.

You Wrote to me before you deleted it.....

Dear tpcdaz and the GitHub community,

We appreciate your reaching out and expressing your concerns. There seems to be a significant misunderstanding about the recent actions taken regarding YouTube content, and we would like to clarify our position and address any confusion.

Misunderstanding About Plugins:

Firstly, we want to clarify that the YouTube takedowns are not related to people using InsightFace's plugins. The issue at hand is the unauthorized commercial use of InsightFace's underlying technology by using the third-party tools like ROOP and REACTOR. These platforms have incorporated our technology without adhering to the necessary licensing agreements.

MY REPLY : The MIT Licence clearly states that commercial use is allowed. You trying to lie to people only shows how stupid you think the community is.

Impact on Content Creators:

We understand that this situation has inadvertently affected content creators, particularly those who have used these third-party tools in their videos. Our intention was never to penalize creators who are unknowingly caught in this situation. Instead, our actions are aimed at ensuring compliance with our licensing terms, which have been violated by these third-party tools.

MY REPLY : You have targeted youtubers, you have flagged their videos for copyright infringement. do not insult the intelligence of people by saying they have "inadvertently" been affected. You have manually targetted youtubers who educate and show how to use AI software. This is on you. Don't ever lie to the community that help make you, and believe me .... they will break you too.

We are more than willing to engage with any content creator impacted by this issue. Our team is prepared to explain the situation in detail and work towards a resolution. If a creator agrees to our terms, which primarily involve acknowledging the correct use of our technology and its licensing restrictions, remove the offending videos, we are ready to assist in having any strikes removed IMMEDIATELY. No strings attached besides those written agreements and video deletion.

MY REPLY : Wrong again. Youtubers have tried to reach out to you. ME INCLUDED and I was met with no help, no reply, no remorse and was told that there was legal and ethical standards you adhere too. Despite this, you have a discord full of people changing the faces of half-naked women and full of copyrighted images. So once again do not try to insult people with your bs, The MIT license which you released this under does not have any restrictions, you have fabricated these in your lie.

Protecting Intellectual Property:

As a technology provider, it is our responsibility to protect our intellectual property and ensure that it is used in a manner that is legally compliant and respectful of our licensing terms. This stance is not unique to InsightFace; it is a standard practice across the technology industry to safeguard innovations and their ethical use.

MY REPLY : You released this software under the MIT license here - https://opensource.org/license/mit/ the license allows for ANY use. You have false flagged videos, abused the copyright system, and breached your contract. This will be shared amongst the community.

Open to Dialogue:

We understand the importance of community and open dialogue. We encourage anyone with concerns or questions about our actions or licensing terms to reach out to us directly. Our team is committed to transparency and is ready to provide clarity and support wherever needed.

MY REPLY : Once again lying. Any attempts to reach out were met with a cut-and-paste reply and even people's accounts were banned on your discord when they raised concerns. You claim you're committed to transparency but have been deleting any mentions and any questions to do with your recent flagging of videos. That is not what transparent means. That is a cover-up.

Our Commitment:

InsightFace is committed to advancing AI technology responsibly. We believe in fostering a community where technology and creativity thrive together, respecting both legal obligations and the scope of artistic expression.

MY REPLY : You have no community after this. you have backstabbed the entire community and I'll be sure that this message gets out to millions of people to make sure your actions are exposed.

In conclusion, we regret any inconvenience or confusion caused to the YouTube creator community. Our goal is to respect both the creators' hard work and our licensing terms. We invite open communication to resolve any issues and look forward to continuing to support the AI community in a constructive and collaborative manner.

MY REPLY : You have no respect for the community, If you respected hard work you would have reached out to people instead of sending a team to try to stop people earning a livelihood on youtube. You don't invite communication at all. Your PR team are about to have a storm.

—

[nttstar]

If your eyes haven't failed you, please look here: https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface#license

[nttstar]

By the way, I haven't deleted any of your replies. It seems you are completely unaware of how the open-source community operates. Are you really a tech blogger? Also, the one who actually tried to delete comments is you; my response comments under your video have all disappeared, huh?

[tpcdaz]

Firstly I know your licence very well actually. You don't seem to. SIcne the licence states that it can be used commercially. You don't just get to make stuff up and say it's not. So how about you open your eyes.

MIT License states : Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

Clearly states it can be used commercially

Secondly. Yes you did. Following the link in the email notification I got says it was closed. Meaning you made sure it got taken out of the main open boards. You did that.

[nttstar]

After I've emphasized it multiple times, you still don't understand our open-source license, so I can't continue this discussion with you. Also, closing a GitHub issue is not the same as deleting it; anyone can access it.

[tpcdaz]

After I've emphasized it multiple times, you still don't understand our open-source license, so I can't continue this discussion with you. Also, closing a GitHub issue is not the same as deleting it; anyone can access it.

I understand it fully.

This is what you did. You released the software under the MIT license. You then tried to bolt on your own made up licence. Thats not how it works. If you had an issue with Roop and ReActor you could have quite happily have gone after them. You didn't ... you went after youtubers, the very community that you claim to respect. You have caused a PR disaster for yourself all because you tried to breach your MIT Licence, Act unprofessionally and lets be honest. You were tired of your software being used by people for free which meant that picsi.ai wasn't making any money. So you decided to bully and steamroll your way through them,.

It backfired mate. Insightface is now screwed because you got greedy.

[nttstar]

Everyone understands our license except you. Do you think it's because your intelligence stands out from the crowd?

[tpcdaz]

Everyone understands our license except you. Do you think it's because your intelligence stands out from the crowd?

If that was true you wouldn't need to be flagging videos. You released this under the MIT Licence. End of.

"The code of InsightFace is released under the MIT License. There is no limitation for both academic and commercial usage"

You tried adding non-commercial underneath it. Thats not how a license works.

[ghost]

Everyone understands our license except you. Do you think it's because your intelligence stands out from the crowd?

I don't understand this eighter. But as it becomes apparent in this closed out of frustration issue, that the unprofessionality didn't start with the youtubers or community or their now stated lack of intelligence.

[nttstar]

I can emphasize once again, that our open-source license was established in 2020 and has not been specifically modified for any model. That's all there is to say. I won't waste any more time discussing such foolish matters.

[tpcdaz]

here is a link to your license. Since you have clearly forgotten what yours is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

[DLohn]

From what I understand, the intended interpretation of the license that is that the code of InsightFace is licensed under the MIT License.

Under this interpretation, the MIT license does not apply to anything that is not strictly code, such as models and training data. The inswapper model specifically is not distributed as code, but instead an onnx file containing a node graph and pretrained weights, which falls under the noncommercial use restriction. Any models not trained with insightface's data have no restrictions placed on them.

[tpcdaz]

From what I understand, the intended interpretation of the license that is that the code of InsightFace is licensed under the MIT License.

Under this interpretation, the MIT license does not apply to anything that is not strictly code, such as models and training data. The inswapper model specifically is not distributed as code, but instead an onnx file containing a node graph and pretrained weights, which falls under the noncommercial use restriction. Any models not trained with insightface's data have no restrictions placed on them.

Onnx files fall under the Apache Licence 2.0, which has full commercial rights. https://github.com/onnx/onnx/blob/main/LICENSE

[nttstar]

From what I understand, the intended interpretation of the license that is that the code of InsightFace is licensed under the MIT License. Under this interpretation, the MIT license does not apply to anything that is not strictly code, such as models and training data. The inswapper model specifically is not distributed as code, but instead an onnx file containing a node graph and pretrained weights, which falls under the noncommercial use restriction. Any models not trained with insightface's data have no restrictions placed on them.

Onnx files fall under the Apache Licence 2.0, which has full commercial rights. https://github.com/onnx/onnx/blob/main/LICENSE

OK, save a record of your responses, in case you edit them in the future.

[tpcdaz]

I don't edit responses unless I see a typo that needs to be corrected. Nothing else gets edited so feel free to save whatever you wish.

[nttstar]

Initially today I was a bit annoyed when I saw your video, but your response above made me burst into laughter. Thank you for that.

[DLohn]

Regardless of the license, what's the justification for striking the videos? One relevant example that comes to mind is Nintendo's EULA. The EULA permits only "personal, noncommercial use" of software e.g. games on their latest console.

Despite this EULA, YouTubers and content creators in general have fought for, and in most cases won the right to monetize transformative content depicting Nintendo's games under the protection of fair use in the U.S., and similar laws elsewhere. If one of the largest video game companies in the world cannot successfully strike YouTube videos they do not like, what is insightface's strategy for circumventing the fair use protection on videos they disapprove of?

[tpcdaz]

Initially today I was a bit annoyed when I saw your video, but your response above made me burst into laughter. Thank you for that.

What video? I never made a video.

[tpcdaz]

Regardless of the license, what's the justification for striking the videos? One relevant example that comes to mind is Nintendo's EULA. The EULA permits only "personal, noncommercial use" of software e.g. games on their latest console.

Despite this EULA, YouTubers and content creators in general have fought for, and in most cases won the right to monetize transformative content depicting Nintendo's games under the protection of fair use in the U.S., and similar laws elsewhere. If one of the largest video game companies in the world cannot successfully strike YouTube videos they do not like, what is insightface's strategy for circumventing the fair use protection on videos they disapprove of?

Insightfaces strategy seem to be false flag the videos in the hope youtube will side with them. We all know youtube does not have a great way to appeal or to communicate what is actually going on. So Insightface are hoping some will stick. Very poor practice and shady.

[ashleykleynhans]

If your eyes haven't failed you, please look here: https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface#license

@nttstar you cannot add something to your README 2 months after applications like roop are built stating that the models cannot be used for commercial purposes when your original licensing everywhere is the MIT license which allows for commercial use.

The first commit on the roop repo was on 28 May 2023, but you only updated the README so say that the models cannot be used for commercial purposes on 20 July 2023. You can't simply change your licensing terms because its convenient for you when you originally applied the MIT license.

[nttstar]

If your eyes haven't failed you, please look here: https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface#license

@nttstar you cannot add something to your README 2 months after applications like roop are built stating that the models cannot be used for commercial purposes when your original licensing everywhere is the MIT license which allows for commercial use.

The first commit on the roop repo was on 28 May 2023, but you only updated the README so say that the models cannot be used for commercial purposes on 20 July 2023. You can't simply change your licensing terms because its convenient for you when you originally applied the MIT license.

This is the license description in Jan 2022, can you check it in detail?? Not changed at all. https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface/tree/466a162a09a8abc670ce2656bd754d9ab513f231#license

[nttstar]

Since the title of this issue contains profanity, I closed it initially. However, if the author is willing to modify the title, I am open to reopening it.

[ghost]

The line in question was added in may, 14th, 2019. While the repository and initial code is older, using today's versions and models need to follow this.

However, what exactly commercial purpose is, especially considering YouTube channels (and amongst those especially educational ones (!)), should be defined with care and maybe not lead to harmful legal attacks without even reaching out before.

Maybe all sides can find a compromise here.

[nttstar]

@lviolal Actually, I think ordinary technical introduction videos are fine, but Olivio's video involves using celebrities for deepfake, which is a bit different. Additionally, the strike can be retracted. My partner Joey also communicated with Olivio for quite some time, but unlike with other video creators, they didn't reach an agreement.

[ashleykleynhans]

Since the title of this issue contains profanity, I closed it initially. However, if the author is willing to modify the title, I am open to reopening it.

Since when was WTF profanity? Unless it explicitly contains profanity, it is left up to interpretation and if you choose to interpret it as profanity then thats on you and not the author.

[ghost]

@lviolal Actually, I think ordinary technical introduction videos are fine, but Olivio's video involves using celebrities for deepfake, which is a bit different. Additionally, the strike can be retracted. My partner Joey also communicated with Olivio for quite some time, but unlike with other video creators, they didn't reach an agreement.

If he used those who didn't give their general consent to things like this, I get your point. Maybe retracting the strike can help ease this topic and spread less fear (which is kind of happening here obviously), though I agree that everyone should definitely take down videos that use this technology on non-consenting individuals.

[DLohn]

@lviolal Actually, I think ordinary technical introduction videos are fine, but Olivio's video involves using celebrities for deepfake, which is a bit different. Additionally, the strike can be retracted. My partner Joey also communicated with Olivio for quite some time, but unlike with other video creators, they didn't reach an agreement.

@nttstar Over at https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface/issues/2469 you state using celebrity photos is permissible for academic purposes.

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.

So there's an ethical difference between uploading a video demonstrating your models and publishing an academic paper demonstrating your models? If the distinctions are this arbitrary, then full policy should be stated publicly and prominently, with as much detail as possible, especially if you expect every YouTuber to abide by it. This is assuming you have the right to take down videos which you deem violate your license, which is rather doubtful in the first place given the creators can claim fair use.

[nttstar]

Creating and publishing videos does not constitute academic research activities.

[tpcdaz]

Since the title of this issue contains profanity, I closed it initially. However, if the author is willing to modify the title, I am open to reopening it.

Thats a stretch but sure I'll play your little game. Now you can re-open it for everybody

[ashleykleynhans]

Creating and publishing videos does not constitute academic research activities.

Agreed but its not commercial activities either, its educational activities and does not contain the actual code/models/training data, it merely shows how to use them.

[nttstar]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

[tpcdaz]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

Except you're not having discussions. Thats like knocking down someones door with a tank then claiming "you knocked" no you sent a battering ram into the community then act surprised when people tell you that it was a little overkill. You have turned your moral position into a fake legal claim.

[nttstar]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

Except you're not having discussions. Thats like knocking down someones door with a tank then claiming "you knocked" no you sent a battering ram into the community then act surprised when people tell you that it was a little overkill. You have turned your moral position into a fake legal claim.

Hello philosopher.

[tpcdaz]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

Except you're not having discussions. Thats like knocking down someones door with a tank then claiming "you knocked" no you sent a battering ram into the community then act surprised when people tell you that it was a little overkill. You have turned your moral position into a fake legal claim.

Hello philosopher.

Thats your reply? The community tell you that they have issues with you respecting them and you reply with comments mocking them. It's pretty clear that you don't care about the community, you don't care about the youtubers who made you or the people who have concerns. You close threads, you ban people from discord and then mock them when they have issues. Thank you for showing your true colours to the whole community who will make sure that your and InsightFace's actions are very well documented to the point nobody will use you or care about you. After all it's only fair we treat you the same as you've treated us. RIP InsightFace

[ashleykleynhans]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

There is a difference between using your work (models, code, training data) etc directly to make a profit, and creating educational videos showing people how to apply your work though. The intent of the person also needs to be taken into consideration. While there are obviously people that are going to abuse/misuse the models, that was not the intent of the specific YouTuber, he was merely making educational videos to allow people to have fun without any intent to cause harm to anyone.

I understand the valid concern with regards to people abusing the models and applying them to pictures of celebrities etc without their consent, its a valid concern because unfortunately there will always be people out there who abuse things and ruin things for everyone else. However, do you perhaps have a licensing agreement for people who want to use your models commercially by using their own original pictures with models posing for a photoshoot and then face swapping into those models for example, without violating copyrighted pictures of celebrities for example?

[ghost]

However, do you perhaps have a licensing agreement for people who want to use your models commercially by using their own original pictures with models posing for a photoshoot and then face swapping into those models for example, without violating copyrighted pictures of celebrities for example?

I like the approach. Why not make a specific use agreement? This ethical complicated topic is clearly too multifaceted for simple terms like MIT or non-commercial anyway, isn't it? Clearly many are confused the way it is right now.

[DLohn]

From https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface/issues/2469

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.

@nttstar thank you for stepping back from this course of action. If no further strikes are to be made concerning these issues, then I think it only makes sense to remove any current ones, especially given the previous offer to retract the strikes:

@lviolal Actually, I think ordinary technical introduction videos are fine, but Olivio's video involves using celebrities for deepfake, which is a bit different. Additionally, the strike can be retracted.

Removing the strikes on Olivio's videos would be a show of good faith, help (re)build trust and the community can move on from arguments and insults. Then this issue could also be closed as all strikes were retracted.

[HelloPackets89]

Leave Olivio alone.

[Ferniclestix]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

actually, I do, I refuse to monetize my channel. only one making money off my vid is youtube. I don't really care about money, its nice but eh, cant take it with you when you go.

[ashleykleynhans]

It depends on the perspective you're looking from. From an educational standpoint, it seems fine. But from a profit-making perspective, it's also valid. Nobody makes videos just for the love of it; attracting followers and collecting YouTube streaming fees are forms of profit-making. However, generally, we don't delve too deep into this. We're just having a discussion here.

actually, I do, I refuse to monetize my channel. only one making money off my vid is youtube.

Even those who do monetize their channels, don't make massive amounts of revenue unless they have a large audience/number of subscribers, hence why many of them post things on Patreon behind a paywall because its easier to generate income like that.

[nttstar]

Goto https://github.com/deepinsight/insightface/issues/2469 if someone has further discussions.