oh, probably we need to hide this from log.
When you start CompreFace the first time, on the login page, there is a "try demo" button.
So you don't need even to register to try CompreFace
When you register, there is a "demo" application with the same functionality
But we hide the "try demo" button for security reasons - only registered users will see it.
And this logs says that there is no more "try demo" button
And yes, CompreFace is totally free, with no paid features or restrictions, it could work without the internet and we can't disable your installed copy remotely :)
I have tried to train a model by passing a relative path than in that case it works. But to automate the process using the Node Js File system module. It generates the absolute path so I need to pass the absolute path instead of the relative path.
First of all, I'm not a legal expert, so I can be wrong in any of my claims.
We do not own the models, just use other open-source libraries, so the licenses of other libraries apply in this case. Both FaceNet and InsightFace are licensed by MIT License which is totally compatible with CompreFace Apache-2.0 License and can be used in commercial use without limitations.
But if Insightface answered you that it is prohibited to use their models, then probably this is it. When we started to integrate with InsightFace there were no limitations, but as far as I know, they can change the license, and now there are lots of mentions "Only for research purposes" on both their GitHub and pypi.org project.
The problem is that it's not clear if anybody can use any face recognition model at all(even for non-commercial usage).
Think about it - to train a face recognition model, you should collect a huge dataset of faces. To use it, even for non-commercial usage, you should receive the consent of every person in this dataset. And this is impossible.
Just an example - MS-Celeb-1M dataset - which is used by Insightface to train models that are now used by CompreFace.
According to this article, Microsoft didn't ask for the consent of any of the people in the dataset. Also, even if it was created for "non-commercial research purpose only", there is information that it was used by commercial face recognition services like Face++, SenseTime, and Microsoft. It was also used by other companies like Canon, Hitachi, IBM.
So here are my thoughts (which shouldn't be considered as advice for actions):
@pospielov hi i've just joined this channel with a question but I can shed some light on this - people in the celeb dataset willing posted those images online for public consumption and thus gave consent - I don't know where you would stand on commercial use of someone's face within a dataset to improve a model, but those images were willingly posted online with no license attached.
If someone were to walk into an office and slurp their face and apply a label to it(their name) then that's not good. It's why everywhere has "Smile you're on CCTV" signs because people can make a choice if they'd like to be on CCTV or not.
Also if an agent of celeb etc came to you and said "You're using Pamela andersons face"(first time anyone's cared about her face) - what I would answer is that - yes we have, do you know you can now use this model to detect say deepfake porn or images of Pamela anywhere - so whilst it's very unlikely that someone would complain I'd frame the positives.
The law does however vary from country to country, with celebs I don't think you're on dodgy ground since you're not making money from their face your using an image they willingly provided to the public.