Assets and reference collections

Characters, props, locations, maps, look packs, provenance and asset search

• articleWhat does Wikimedia Commons say about using photos of identifiable people (consent, public versus private places, free licences, model releases)?
  The Commons guideline separates the photographer's copyright from subjects' personality rights (publicity and privacy): private-place and commercial uses usually require consent, consent to take a photo is not consent to publish or reuse, rules vary by country, a model release is more permissive than Commons requires, and a free licence covers only the photographer's rights. It is community guidance giving general advice.
• articleIf a reference photo or logo image carries a Creative Commons licence, does that licence also cover the people, trademarks or property shown in it?
  CC BY 4.0 licenses copyright and similar rights only: moral, publicity, privacy and personality rights and patent and trademark rights are not licensed, and the licensor waives only rights it holds, as far as needed for the licensed use. Rights held by others (a person pictured, a brand shown) are unaffected, CC does not guarantee model releases, and licensors are advised to mark third-party rights.
• articleHow are licences embedded in image and media files (XMP xmpRights, Creative Commons XMP, IPTC rights fields), and what does documentation say survives common handling?
  An image can carry licence information in parallel XMP places (dc:rights, xmpRights:UsageTerms/WebStatement/Marked, IPTC Extension and PLUS licensing fields, cc:license/morePermissions); no text read says which wins on disagreement; IPTC states copyright management metadata must never be removed, yet its 2019 platform tests (reported by IPTC) show several sites strip metadata from saved or downloaded files.
• articleWhich RightsStatements.org statement fits a cultural-heritage item, and which of the 12 assert a determination versus an unknown status?
  RightsStatements.org offers 12 statements (In Copyright, No Copyright, Other); its page says all but 'the two statements for objects with an unclear copyright status' should be applied only after copyright status is established, while the Other group lists three statements (CNE, UND, NKC), so NKC's status under that sentence is unclear.
• articleIf a record or old dataset carries a www.europeana.eu/rights/... rights URI (rr-f, rr-p, unknown...), does Europeana still accept it, and what should an agent do?
  Europeana retired its own www.europeana.eu/rights statements on 2016-11-11 in favour of rightsstatements.org equivalents (Paid Access retired outright); legacy URIs may still appear in old data, and Europeana code still recognises them (producer, code not re-read), but no source read says they are mapped automatically.
• articleWhat rights information does the Europeana Search API expose, and how does its reusability filter relate to rights URIs?
  Europeana's Search API documentation (archived 13 Apr 2024) offers a reusability filter whose 'open' bucket covers PDM, CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA and whose 'restricted' bucket covers NC and other restricted statements, with a 'permission' bucket for the rest; the API requires a registered key.
• articleIs the 1X world-model challenge data and are the GENIE_138M/35M weights gated or behind a terms-acceptance step on Hugging Face, and what licence label does each repository carry?
  At observation (2026-10-22 13:29-13:30Z) the Hugging Face API returned gated:false for all four repositories (tokenised dataset, raw-video dataset, GENIE_138M, GENIE_35M) to unauthenticated GETs; no terms were accepted or needed for the metadata. Licence labels: tokenised data apache-2.0; raw video cc-by-nc-sa-4.0; both GENIE weight repositories apache-2.0; the 1xgpt GitHub repository carries a full Apache-2.0 LICENSE text. Only labels (not licence prose) are present in the Hugging Face repositories, and the dataset ids used in older links now redirect.
• articleWhich licence terms are recorded for the Unity Recorder package components (source code, other package content, third-party GIF encoder) and what does the Unity Companion License v1.4 text say about use?
  The package's LICENSE.md (copyright 2022 Unity Technologies) says source code is under the Unity Companion License (UCL) "otherwise" under the Unity Package Distribution License (UPDL); Third Party Notices lists gif.ski as a commercial licence (Kornel Lesinski). The UCL v1.4 text served by unity.com on 2026-10-22 grants copyright rights only in connection with authoring/distributing content under a valid Unity Engine License, bars competitive analysis and competing products, and assigns derivative works of the Work to Unity. UPDL text and gif.ski terms were not read. No legal clearance is concluded.
• articleDoes any openly readable on-set VFX data template record who captured each item (operator/person) and whether it was checked or unverified, and if not what is the nearest documented substitute?
  Negative result with partial analogues. In the VES Camera Report spec the only person field is slate-level 'Wrangler' (person entering data); the VES On-Set VFX Data Guide (v1.1.0 file) assigns a Creator role per data item (role names, not persons). Across the pinned VES texts read there is no verified/unverified or checked field; the nearest items are the 'Under Protest' VFX Work flag, the guide's Clips Report 'data confirmation' and the timestamped virtual-production scene snapshot. A synthesis proposal adds 'Tk Captured By' and 'Tk Verification Status' columns, which the spec's own extension rule and sample reader would carry (untested).
• articleI need a free, ready-made on-set VFX camera report: which fields does the VES form have, what person field exists, and what does it let the wrangler tick as captured?
  The VES Camera Report (VES Technology Committee, camerareports.org) is a free Filemaker database, blank paper PDF and CSV interchange spec whose slate/take fields cover lens (focal length, focus distance, lens height, serial, stop, shutter, tilt, dutch), unit, camera and a 'Set Media' checklist (Balls, Clean Plate, Cube, HDRI, Mocap, Photos, Survey Diagram, Tile Set, Virtual Set, Witness Cam). Its only person field is slate-level 'Wrangler' ('person entering the data'); no verification/checked/status field appears in the spec, proposal, changelog, developer guide or blank form texts read. LIDAR is not a baseline Set Media value, though the spec says other values may be defined.
• articleWhere do the Vimeo-90K, Flickr2K and OST images come from according to their own authors, and which third-party terms might therefore sit underneath them?
  Vimeo-90K: 89,800 clips cut from videos downloaded from vimeo.com (project page); the README says 5,846 selected videos, a subset of the AoT dataset. Flickr2K: collected by the EDSR authors with the Flickr API. OST: images from search-engine queries by category with ImageNet images as backgrounds, per the SFTGAN paper. In each case the authors' pages state origin, not the terms of the underlying source; those terms (Vimeo, Flickr, search-engine results, ImageNet) were not examined in this batch.
• articleIs there an official, citable Universal Category System filename specification (PDF or HTML at a dated version) that I can fetch from the UCS site, or must I rely on tools and vendor pages?
  Negative result at the public-web level. At access time the official site (universalcategorysystem.com) publishes no filename-specification PDF or HTML page itself: it links only to resources.universalcategorysystem.com, which redirects into a Dropbox shared folder whose download form is a single 339,633,132-byte 'UCS Release.zip'. The folder listing could not be read without downloading the archive or running JavaScript, so whether a dated filename-spec document exists inside it is unverified. The site's version note is 8.2.1 (January 2024); earlier captures show the repository was Google Drive in 2020 and Dropbox by mid-2023.
• articleHow is a UCS sound-effects filename built (CatID, FXName, CreatorID, SourceID, UserData), which fields are required, and what do open tools say about the separators?
  Two independent open tools describe the same layout, CatID_FXName_CreatorID_SourceID_UserData, with the underscore as the block separator. They disagree on strictness: ucsrename (README) calls CatID, FXName, CreatorID and SourceID required with UserData optional, while ucs-tools (code docstring) says only a valid CatID at the head is a hard requirement. Neither is the UCS specification; the official filename text was not reachable. ucs-tools additionally documents optional '-UserCategory' after CatID and 'VendorCategory-' before FXName.
• articleWhich licence or terms text covers each of the five 3D asset sources behind TRELLIS-500K (Objaverse-XL, ABO, 3D-FUTURE, HSSD, Toys4k), and what does each text say about commercial use, redistribution and training?
  The five sources carry five different kinds of terms, and none of the five texts mentions model training. ABO is CC BY 4.0 as a whole. Objaverse-XL is ODC-By 1.0 as a whole with the licence of each object left to the object. 3D-FUTURE (agreement of March 28, 2020) is research-only with bars on commercialisation and on handing the data to third parties. HSSD is CC BY-NC 4.0 (project page) and gated; its paper says the Floorplanner data is made available for academic use. Toys4k has no licence file in the repository: it asks users not to distribute the data and refers to a separate attribution PDF that was not read. This is a reading of the texts, not a legal conclusion.
• articleOf the free sound-effects libraries I might use (Freesound, Sonniss GDC bundle, BBC Sound Effects, Pixabay sound effects), which say anything about AI or machine-learning training, in which document, and does the short summary page say the same as the legal text?
  A comparison at dated reads. Freesound: training allowed if each sound's CC licence is respected, plus uploader preferences since July 2026. Sonniss: AI training expressly prohibited in the licence and repeated on the bundle page. BBC: AI development or training needs BBC permission. Pixabay: the licence summary page says nothing about machine learning, while the Terms of Service prohibit scraping and data mining "for machine learning purposes" and describe a contributor opt-out for Pixabay's own AI training; so a reader of the summary alone would miss the ML clause. Mixkit's sound-effects licence text is script-rendered and was not obtained.
• articleWhat does the Sonniss #GameAudioGDC bundle licence (version 2.0, effective 27 August 2026) permit and forbid for commercial use, redistribution, attribution and AI training, how did it change, and where does the bundle page summary differ from the legal text?
  At the snapshot of 2026-10-10 the licence version 2.0 allows use and modification in personal and commercial projects without attribution, bars selling the sounds as they come and bars supplying them to others as sound effects (also in libraries or packs, modified or not), and expressly prohibits using them to train, develop or enhance AI technologies. The history page says the AI section was added on 28 January 2024, that earlier text allowed free distribution, and that the version published on the download day governs. The bundle page summarises the sounds as licensed for media production "only" and the AI ban as "training", both narrower or different in wording than the legal text.
• articlePoly Haven, ambientCG and Kenney all say CC0: what do their own pages actually say about commercial use, redistribution, modification, attribution and AI training, and which site-level terms sit outside the CC0 asset licence?
  At the access time below, the three libraries each state CC0 for their assets and say commercial use needs no credit. Only Poly Haven addresses AI training in its own words (FAQ: yes). Poly Haven also keeps separate website and API terms that are not the CC0 asset licence, and its FAQ states a "re-license" limit that the CC0 legal code does not contain. ambientCG and Kenney pages read say nothing about AI/ML training; that is a bounded absence, not permission or prohibition.
• articleWhat do the Kuleshov papers state about where their face and context stimuli came from, whether the stimuli or data are public, and under what terms, so an agent knows what can be re-used?
  Articles are mostly CC BY (Cao, Calbi, Mullennix, Szaszko & Loebus), but the stimuli are a different matter. Face sets named in the papers are KDEF (Calbi/Barratt, Mullennix) and NIM-STIM (Mobbs); context sets are IAPS (Mobbs, Mullennix) and OASIS (Szaszko & Loebus); Cao and Szaszko & Loebus filmed their own faces and Cao shot its scenes with actors who consented to publication. The one stimulus-set terms text read (KDEF's own page) allows only researchers, non-commercial use and forbids redistribution without written consent. No paper states a licence for its own clips; Cao's GitHub repository (no licence file, tree lists only spreadsheets and statistical maps) does not contain the video stimuli; Mullennix's data are on Dryad (metadata says CC0); Szaszko & Loebus provide data on request. Terms for IAPS, NIM-STIM and OASIS were not read.
• articleCan I use sound generated by MMAudio, HunyuanVideo-Foley or ThinkSound in a commercial delivery, according to what their licences and cards actually say?
  The texts differ per component. MMAudio: code MIT; checkpoints CC BY-NC 4.0 (non-commercial) with a README warning that training-dataset licences apply and commercial suitability is not guaranteed. HunyuanVideo-Foley: Tencent Hunyuan Community License, which says Tencent claims no rights in Outputs but excludes EU/UK/South Korea, bars using Outputs to improve other AI models, restricts use outside the Territory and adds a 100M monthly-active-user condition. ThinkSound: HF card says Apache-2.0 while the GitHub README says commercial use is not permitted (see -05). No text read grants clearance; this record does not conclude legal permission.
• articleHow do I read the licence of a single Wikimedia Commons file safely: which part of the file page and API is the evidence, and what can the API flatten?
  Commons policy requires every file description page to carry a copyright tag, source and author, and says the page should allow others to verify the licence status; the help page for reusers adds that the Foundation gives no warranty and the reuser should verify. In the worked example File:Hopetoun_falls.jpg, the page wikitext carries {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL|attribution=...}} (two licences), while the API's License and LicenseShortName fields show only CC BY-SA 3.0; GFDL appears in Categories and the Permission text. So the wikitext at a page revision is the better evidence, and the API fields are a convenient summary.
• articleWhat is the Universal Category System for sound effects, where is its official list published, which version and category list does it define, and under what terms?
  UCS describes itself as a public-domain initiative offering a fixed category list and a filename structure for sound effects; its site (observed 2026-10-22) announces version 8.2.1 (January 2024). Its only distribution channel is a Dropbox shared folder reached through resources.universalcategorysystem.com, which a raw HTTP read cannot list, so no official specification text or official CSV was read at a stable URL. The 8.2.1 list can be read as plain CSV from three third-party repositories (each citing the UCS site as source): 753 CatID rows, 82 categories, columns Category, SubCategory, CatID, CatShort, Explanations, Synonyms. Terms are a self-description ('public domain'), not licence prose.
• articleCan an L10 experiment use Xiph's derf test-video collection with a clear per-clip licence, and what do the per-clip notices say?
  Not as a collection. The derf page says clips were publicly accessible or given to Xiph and are 'believed to be freely redistributable', that some may impose additional restrictions, and points to copyright or readme files. By my regex tally of the HTML, 118 clip entries, 85 with a copyright or readme link in the header and 32 with no link; 9 entries say login required at the original source. The notices I read differ: Fujitsu's Bowing notice grants use only for research purpose with conditions, the Hannover-path notice limits use to developing, testing and promulgating technology standards, and the twitch folder says public domain with a fair-use caveat. So derf clips need a per-clip read.
• articleI received a third-party media, model, dataset or code asset: what do I need to find out and record about it before I can credit it, and which text tells me what is required?
  A hosting platform's licence tag is a pointer: Hugging Face model-card metadata takes a licence identifier or 'other' with a name and link to a custom licence, so the licence prose is what must be read. Licences can split by component: the CreativeML OpenRAIL-M text at the pinned commit states the Data is not licensed under it. REUSE's .license sidecars can carry per-file licence data for media only by analogy, since REUSE scopes itself to software. Proposal (producer synthesis, labelled): order of work identify exact object and revision -> read licence prose per component at that revision -> split rights by component -> record provenance -> assemble attribution. Not legal advice or clearance; each asset's own licence text must be read.
• articleWhat does the Wikimedia Commons imageinfo extmetadata return for licence and credit, and how does the extension documentation qualify those fields?
  Wikimedia's CommonsMetadata extension describes its extmetadata fields as a temporary solution that outputs parsed HTML and warns that licence values are unreliable for multi-licensed images (with License a best guess and LicenseShortName probably more reliable); a sampled file (Hopetoun_falls.jpg) reports CC BY-SA 3.0 in the licence fields while its categories include GFDL and 'License migration redundant', i.e. a multi-licence case the single licence field does not show.
• articleHow does an open asset-management system identify an asset, its versions and its files, and how are dependencies recorded?
  At ayon-backend 0a2e5cdd, uniqueness is scoped case-insensitively by parent: folder names under a parent, product names per folder, version numbers per product and representation names per version, with the product/version/representation rules applying only to active rows; the licence is FSL-1.1-ALv2 (source-available, no Competing Use, converting to Apache-2.0 two years after each release), which GitHub metadata reports as NOASSERTION.
• articleWhat ExifTool sample files exist for metadata testing and what do the repository and sample-image page say about their reuse?
  At ExifTool 2200871d the README says it is distributed on the same terms as Perl (Artistic License or GPL), while the LICENSE file is the GPL v3 text; the repository ships 194 verification test files under t/images (722,199 bytes) with no file-level licence statement found; the separate sample-image archive replaces main images and strips previews 'to avoid copyright problems' while preserving EXIF/APP segments, without stating a licence.
• articleWhich public OpenUSD test assets exist (usd-wg/assets, Pixar Kitchen Set), and which of them state terms that would let L10 use them?
  The usd-wg/assets repository (3b75c2da) declares licences per asset in each readme (typically CC0 or highly permissive) with the repository licence as fallback, while Pixar's Kitchen Set is offered only under a temporary, revocable licence for personal, non-commercial testing of USD.
• articleWhich licence applies to Netflix Open Content titles in AV1/, av2ctc/ and IMF/, and does it match what the Open Content page says?
  Netflix's Open Content page says its open source content is available under CC BY 4.0, but the per-title licence files for the Chimera AV1 encodes (Sept 2019) and the Meridian IMP/VDM/Atmos assets (Nov 2016) license those sequences under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, and the AV1 readme says each asset's licence is in its own license.txt; the TechblogAssets Sparks licence file referenced by the README returns 404.
• articleWhich public museum open-access programs release images for reuse, and which parts (data, images) are actually under CC0?
  The Met and NGA open-data READMEs state that image files are not part of their CC0 datasets, while Cleveland states images for up to 30,000 works are offered on the same terms as its dataset; all three ask users not to use museum trademarks or imply endorsement. Dataset-level CC0 therefore does not establish image rights for Met or NGA items.
• articleWhich glTF-Sample-Assets models carry non-CC0/CC-BY terms (non-commercial, EULA, testing-only) that L10 must exclude or handle separately?
  At 15cd02d3 the repository's REUSE.toml has 151 annotation blocks: 62 plain CC0-1.0 and 46 plain CC-BY-4.0 (curator re-tally matches the producer); others combine CC licences with trademark references or name non-open terms (SCEA, CRYENGINE agreement, 3DRT testing-only, Poser EULA, Adobe Stock, CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0, CC-BY-4.0 AND CC-BY-NC-4.0). VirtualCity's 3DRT grant is for testing glTF tools only, and DamagedHelmet lists CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-NC-4.0 together without file-level scope.
• articleWhat does imagineNATIVE's On-Screen Protocols & Pathways state about consultation, story ownership and community review, and for whom is it written?
  The imagineNATIVE-commissioned guide (dated 25 March 2019, written by Marcia Nickerson) says that permission to share a gifted story can be separate from the intellectual-property rights held by its keeper (family, community or nation), that consultation is needed at the beginning and throughout, that consulting one elder does not give sign-off, and that the protocols are a living document rather than a static checklist; it gives a rough-cut community screening as one example, not a required step.
• articleWhere do licence statements, dependency notices, dataset provenance and weight file formats disagree or leave gaps for these 3D generators?
  Four items need curator attention: (1) TripoSG advertises MIT but its NOTICE lists code derived from Tencent HunyuanDiT (Tencent Hunyuan Community License notice) and the BRIA RMBG-1.4 background-remover whose card says non-commercial; the README downloads RMBG weights. (2) TRELLIS-500K metadata says MIT while the DATASET.md describes assets curated from Objaverse(XL), ABO, 3D-FUTURE, HSSD and Toys4k and states the dataset is CSV metadata; asset-level licences were not read. (3) Hunyuan3D repos ship .ckpt (pickle-capable) next to safetensors; 2.1 ships .ckpt and .bin; TripoSR ships model.ckpt; the licence texts do not address file formats. (4) The Tencent Hunyuan 2.0 HF card links its licence at LICENSE.txt while the HF file list shows LICENSE.
• articleWhat do Fab and Quixel say a buyer of a Fab Standard License or CC-BY asset may do, and what part of the binding text could not be read without a browser?
  The Fab EULA page (Internet Archive snapshot 2026-10-08) shows only a self-described non-binding summary: commercial use and distribution of Projects allowed, stand-alone resale or free redistribution not allowed, no credit to the publisher required. It does not mention AI or machine learning. The binding EULA text is script-rendered and was not captured, so the Standard License's AI-training position is unknown to this batch. Fab documentation separately says the NoAI tag marks assets not to be used for generative-AI data collection and needs the Standard licence.
• articleWhat do Freesound's per-sound Creative Commons licences, attribution guidance and AI-training answers say at the access date, and where does Freesound's own summary go beyond or differ from the Creative Commons legal texts?
  Freesound distributes each sound under the licence its uploader chose (CC0, CC BY or CC BY-NC 4.0, plus legacy Sampling+). Its FAQ now answers AI training as "yes as long as individual sounds' Creative Commons licenses are respected" and, as of July 2026, adds uploader-level Gen AI preferences (open-source-only, non-commercial open-source-only, no generative AI, and a voice opt-out) on top of the licence, exposed to API users for filtering and in Data Packs. Freesound labels its CC-to-training reading as its own interpretation (for example CC-BY requires disclosing the training set); the CC legal code text does not mention AI and the CC FAQ says the answer depends.
• articleThe BBC Sound Effects archive says it is free to download: what does the RemArc licence text actually permit (personal, research, education, commercial), what must I do, and what does it say about text and data mining or AI?
  The BBC Sound Effects site is a script-rendered app whose licence text is embedded in its JavaScript bundle (read as text only). That text (the BBC's Content Licence for RemArc) permits non-commercial, personal or research use and formal education use by students and staff, requires a credit, bars sharing such as uploading to social media, and says text and data mining, computer analysis, or developing or training AI need BBC permission and may cost a fee. Commercial use is routed to Pro Sound Effects; metadata is under the Open Government Licence v3.
• articleFor a Sketchfab model, which document governs what I may do (the per-model Creative Commons label, the Standard or Editorial licence, or the Terms of Use), and how do the NoAI and CreatedWithAI labels bear on use in a production or an AI dataset?
  Sketchfab layers three documents: a per-model licence label exposed by the API (seven CC types plus free-st, st, ed), the paid Standard/Editorial licence agreement, and Terms of Use effective 12 August 2026 that bar using NoAI-tagged content in generative-AI datasets and say the licence in force at download governs. Sketchfab's own 2023 blog says the NoAI tag may not bind outside the platform for CC-licensed models. The API objects inspected show no NoAI field, and the licence agreement page text read has no NoAI clause although the blog says Standard-licensed downloads are contractually covered; these gaps are for curation.
• articleWhere do the licence layers of an open V2A model disagree or stack (ThinkSound's Apache vs non-commercial text, Stability's VAE licence, VGGSound/AudioSet/BBC training data)?
  ThinkSound publishes four incompatible-looking statements: HF weights card Apache-2.0 (S15, S16), GitHub README Apache-2.0 headline but research-only/no commercial use (S17), a bundled Stability AI Community License for the fine-tuned VAE (S18; commercial use needs registration and a revenue condition), and a paper statement that the dataset is strictly academic/non-commercial (S14). Its training sources include VGGSound (page: CC BY 4.0, copyright remains with video owners), AudioSet (CC BY 4.0 annotations for YouTube-linked data), Freesound and BBC Sound Effects (site: personal/educational use or license). A permissive label on one file does not resolve the others.
• articleWhen a model repository ships code, weights, data references and generated output, what do the licence texts themselves say about each component, and where do the records disagree?
  Under the OpenRAIL-M text, code/model/derivatives, outputs and training data are addressed by different clauses, and training Data is carved out of the licence; a single "licence: openrail" field cannot stand for all components.
• articleWhat does the VRM Public License 1.0 text itself state, and how does it hand control to the per-model "License Settings"?
  The VRM Public License 1.0 (English page at vrm.dev/en/licenses/1.0/) grants Model Use and makes other rights depend on the License Settings stored in each VRM file; the alternative URL form vrm.dev/licenses/1.0/en/ returned 404 to curator GET, consistent with the producer observation.
• articleWhich machine-readable licence and usage fields does VRM 1.0 (VRMC_vrm.meta) define, and how do they differ from VRM 0.x meta?
  VRM 1.0 meta requires name, authors and licenseUrl and defaults to restrictive values (onlyAuthor, personalNonProfit, credit required, modification prohibited, redistribution false), so an absent field is not a permission; VRM 0.x field names keep the misspelling "Ussage", which parsers must match literally.
• articleAt hub-docs 801da850 the licence table lists 'unknown' and 'other' and routes license: other to license_name plus a LICENSE file; the live licence-tags endpoint returned 82 ids without 'unknown' (curator GET 2026-10-21); huggyllama/llama-7b declares only 'other' with a LICENSE file present, so...
  At hub-docs 801da850 the licence table lists 'unknown' and 'other' and routes license: other to license_name plus a LICENSE file; the live licence-tags endpoint returned 82 ids without 'unknown' (curator GET 2026-10-21); huggyllama/llama-7b declares only 'other' with a LICENSE file present, so restrictive terms are reachable only by reading the file.
• articleWhich third-party parts does the 1X tokenised-data repository actually contain, as opposed to merely reference, and what terms statement exists for each component?
  By its own listing the repository contains one third-party-credited checkpoint (magvit2.ckpt, 1.15 GB), the 1X decoder script, and the token and state files. The Cosmos Tokenizer is referenced, not bundled: the listing has no .jit or Cosmos files, and the 1X decoder script tells the user to download the NVIDIA repository and weights first and loads decoder.jit from a local pretrained_ckpts path. Per component: tokens, script and ckpt sit under one repository-level Apache-2.0 line; Open-MAGVIT2's own files are Apache-labelled but the bundled file matches none of them; the Cosmos weights are under the NVIDIA Open Model License (card-linked June 2024 text), a separate text. No two non-empty texts disagree about the same component, so no conflict is filed; the holds are listed.
• articleHow should an agent record the licence of a third-party asset it uses, separately for code, model weights, dataset and media, and which machine-readable fields exist?
  SPDX 3.0.1 distinguishes declared from concluded licence relationships. REUSE 3.3 recommends comment headers with SPDX-FileCopyrightText and SPDX-License-Identifier; uncommentable files must carry the header in an adjacent file with the extra extension .license; a REUSE.toml may sit in any directory, and REUSE.toml and the deprecated DEP5 file must not be used together. Creative Commons recommends against using CC licences for software or hardware. IPTC Photo Metadata keeps separate fields for Copyright Notice, Rights Usage Terms (xmpRights:UsageTerms), Licensor and Web Statement of Rights (xmpRights:WebStatement), and the ccREL submission marks a licence with rel="license" plus cc:attributionName/cc:attributionURL. Recording each third-party asset's licence per component, with 'not stated' where the source is silent, is a proposed practice (labelled synthesis), and 'declared' means different things in SPDX and CycloneDX.
• articleFor released weights of Real-ESRGAN, FILM, RIFE and Practical-RIFE, what do the repositories say or not say about terms inherited from the training datasets, per component?
  At the pinned commits, no repository README or training doc mentions inherited dataset terms for the weights. Code licences are explicit (Real-ESRGAN BSD-3-Clause, RIFE and Practical-RIFE MIT, FILM Apache-2.0). Only the Practical-RIFE README says its linked model files carry the same MIT licence as the project, and it names no training dataset. Real-ESRGAN names DIV2K as training data while the DIV2K page says academic research purpose only; the Real-ESRGAN files read do not mention that sentence. Whether one affects the other is a legal question and is left to curation.
• articleWhich provenance records (C2PA, IPTC/XMP, SPDX, REUSE) answer which intake question, what do they not record, and what happens to them when the asset is copied or re-encoded?
  Origin records and licence records answer different questions. C2PA 2.4 describes provenance and admits a manifest can be separated from its asset when metadata is stripped (fingerprints may help recovery); for assets without a manifest it uses XMP DocumentID/InstanceID as identifiers. IPTC digital source type values say how media was made (for example trainedAlgorithmicMedia) and say nothing about reuse permission. REUSE 3.3 records copyright and licence per file via comment headers, .license sidecars (allowed for non-text files such as images) or REUSE.toml, but scopes itself to software projects, so media use is by analogy. SPDX 3.0.1 AIPackage describes AI packages. Synthesis (producer, supported): keep provenance and licence records alongside the file (sidecar or database) with the file hash at receipt, and never read an AI-generated source type as a licence statement.
• articleDo documentary organisations, insurers or law firms say anything about E&O insurance and clearing or disclosing AI-generated material, and do the older fair-use and insurer documents mention AI at all?
  The Archival Producers Alliance guidelines (v.7, September 2024) and tool kit say to be transparent with legal counsel and E&O insurers, name risk "not covered by E&O insurance policy" as an item for attorneys, and tool kit question 8 asks whether GenAI materials will impact E&O; they also ask whether the distributor permits GenAI and what documentation it requires. Reed Smith (30 Sep 2026) says E&O coverage may turn on exclusions and gives an AI-assisted rights-clearance report that omits a licence as an exposure example. The Fair Use Statement page (Nov 2005) and both Beazley forms contain no AI terms in the text searched.
• articleWhich general.* metadata keys does the GGUF spec define for identity, provenance and licence, which are required, and how far can an agent trust them to establish a model's licence or lineage?
  At ggml da8e2a54 the spec's 'Required' heading lists general.architecture, general.quantization_version and general.alignment, but the prose qualifies the latter two (quantization_version only if tensors are quantized; alignment defaults to 32). Identity and provenance keys (general.name, author, version, organization, basename, finetune, uuid, doi, url, repo_url, quantized_by, source.* and base_model.{id}.*) are recommended, not required. Licence is carried as general.license (an SPDX expression only, 'do not include any other information'), with optional general.license.name and general.license.link. These are self-declared strings written by whoever created the file; nothing in the spec says they are verified, so they are a lead for provenance, not licence evidence.
• articleDo these platforms say whether uploaded Content Credentials or IPTC AI labels are preserved, re-attached or stripped?
  None of the platform pages read promises that embedded C2PA or IPTC provenance survives into a file you download back. TikTok's only persistence statement (2024) is a plan to attach Content Credentials that remain on downloads; Meta says invisible markers can be stripped; YouTube says its camera-capture disclosure can be lost by edits that break the provenance chain and that a missing disclosure does not imply editing; LinkedIn's help page says nothing about stripping or keeping manifests. No page documents how IPTC digital source type is handled on upload.
• articleHow do SPDX license-list versions, deprecated ids, exceptions (WITH) and LicenseRef-* work, and which media, data and model licences does the list include?
  At SPDX License List 3.29.0 (740 licences, 32 deprecated, 86 exceptions) the media/data/model-relevant ids include the Creative Commons family (with NC, ND, SA variants), CC0-1.0, OFL-1.1 (with Font-exception-2.0), CDLA-Permissive-2.0, ODbL-1.0, OpenMDW-1.0 and Hippocratic-2.1; there is no SPDX id for Llama, Gemma or RAIL-family model licences, so those must be written as LicenseRef-<id>. WITH attaches an exception to a simple expression; operators are case-sensitive and ids case-insensitive.
• articleHow do IPTC Photo Metadata 2025.1 and the IPTC Digital Source Type vocabulary express AI-generated or composite provenance and a data-mining permission, and how does C2PA reference them?
  IPTC's Digital Source Type vocabulary distinguishes media created with generative AI (trainedAlgorithmicMedia), edited with it (compositeWithTrainedAlgorithmicMedia) and composites with generative elements (compositeSynthetic); Photo Metadata carries one such URI in DigitalSourceType and a Data Mining permission URI whose own note says law may overrule it and silence is not permission. An agent needs both the XMP declaration and any C2PA-signed digitalSourceType, which can disagree (producer synthesis).

More