art-DCGAN

Interesting. Considering the readme is the first thing the person sees on the github link and nothing about the license itself precludes other contracts, could the bolded text in this context be considered a verbal contract? Or at least enforceable as such? Edit: Actually, there was a change to the license surrounding pre-trained models and sales back in June, so it's even baked into an obvious contract. A lot of the licensing conversation here is somewhat mooted by this. https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-DCGAN/blob/master/LICENS...

Oh gosh, he even links an issue where one of the guys who sold the painting (Hugo Caselles-Dupre, hence the username Caselles) literally asks for help setting up. So Hugo asks for help with setup because he can't get it to work, and Robbie (original author) replies "working on a rewrite of the codebase, should be soon" while Hugo keeps pushing for updates. Turns out it's trickier than expected so Robbie says "sorry, might take longer". Hugo's response? > "Ok, really disappointed. Could you at least provide the code for the 128x128 Gan in Keras ?" He's literally sitting there for months pushing for poor Robbie to do the free work for him so that he can try to profit from it. Maybe they really did make a lot of changes to the model. But from the conversation in that issue thread and the striking similarities between the painting and the oth

Twitter thread from the author of the original algorithm: https://twitter.com/DrBeef_/status/1055285640420483073 (worth reading the whole thread, the art collective reply) GitHub link: https://github.com/robbiebarrat/art-dcgan The README was last edited 6 months ago and contains the bolded text: "When using any outputs of the models, credit me. Don't sell the outputs of the pre-trained models, modified or not. If you have any questions email me before doing anything."