Nightclub Backgrounds
Author:
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - 11:07
Art Type:
License(s):
Favorites:
2
I experimented with making vibrant night clubs in the style of Cyberpunk and Blade Runner.
Included in the download are 10 high resolution backgrounds. Great for visual novels, cinematic cut scenes, comics, ...
Join my discord https://discord.gg/zEvSHH2jrq
Images generated by Midjourney AI (I am a paid user)
Copyright/Attribution Notice:
Attribution is appreciated but not required
File(s):
File(s) currently unavalable due to potential licensing issues. We apologize for the inconvenience, and are working to correct the issue.
Comments
Indeed this look very awesome, I'm just worried about term&conditions of that AI tool, do they allow things such as commercial use? That's a prerequisite for releasing under CC0. Recently there has been some discussion about AI generated content here, not sure if any concensus has been reached yet.
Yes, Midjourney (MJ) recently updated its ToS which gives MJ's (paid) users all rights for artwork they make with MJ. For free MJ users the artworks created are Creative Commons Noncommercial 4.0 Attribution International License. I am a paid user and therefore retain all rights for the artworks I create.
There is nothing in the ToS that prevents me from releasing my content for free.
You can read more here:
https://midjourney.gitbook.io/docs/billing#commercial-terms
and here:
https://midjourney.gitbook.io/docs/terms-of-service
"Midjourney uses an artificial intelligence system trained on public datasets to produce its Assets."
In some cases, this may be a problem.
https://midjourney.gitbook.io/docs/terms-of-service#5.-dmca-and-takedown...
Thats an inherent problem with all AI generation services for art and music. Nothing we can do about that. It's not a licensing issue though.
That's what all AIs use. There's general precedent that it's fine. Besides, in order for someone to claim infrigment, they would have to prove their work influenced the AI, which is impossible.
i use ai alot in my own projects, but i would not personally feel ethically ok with posting my ai art on oga unless i trained the dataset myself on images i knew to be cc0.
this is really a barely peeled onion.
I don't think you have to prove the AI was "influenced", a derivative work is simply a work that "contains major copyrightable elements of an already existing work" (if Wikipedia is to be trusted), i.e. how it was created doesn't play a role, only that it is similar to something already existing. Anyway these backgrounds look pretty generic, I don't think they'd be infringing, also if the terms&conditions are what's claimed then this should prolly be OK.
^Yep! What drummyfish said. Well, mostly; similarity to another work is more relevant for trademarks, not as much for copyrights. How it was created does play a role for copyrights, though. Namely, "was it created using other copyrighted works?"
For trademark concerns, the end user is responsible for ensuring no trademarks are present in the MJ output. Posting imagry of what a reasonable person would recognize as "Mario" or "Mickey Mouse" and claiming its fine because an AI did it? That won't fly. If MJ produces output where a "Coca-Cola" logo shows up on a billboard outside the nightclub, the submitter is responsible for checking for that and curating it out of the submission. That hasn't happened here, obviously, but it is something to be cognizant of.
For copyright concerns, MJ TOS allows the end user to share the output however they like provided they are a paying user.
It might be, though. The copyright implications of using potentially non-free assets to train an AI is still oft discussed. As Ragnar Random said, this is barely peeled onion. If an AI was trained on copyrighted images, and it produces new images based on that training, is the new image a derivative of the copyrighted images? Given any other software that a user employs to make images, the answer is "yes, it's a derivative." Can software (AI) truly create images from "inspiration"? or is it all just really complex derivation?
These questions are rhetorical for now. I'm not equipped to answer them with any authority. Until that broader discussion progresses closer to some form of conclusion, we'll go with the general consensus. As FiveBrosStopMos said, there's general precedent that it's fine. If that general consensus changes, so will the decision to host such assest on OGA.
So long as the submitter can reasonably demonstrate or affirm they are a paying user of MJ (which FieraRyan has done), then they are in compliance with the MJ TOS by sharing MJ output under open licenses here on OGA.
Thanks for sharing these, FieraRyan. Pretty cool!
This submission has been marked as having a potential licensing issue. Hopefully, this is temporary. This does not mean the submitter has done anything wrong or that there is even a licensing issue at all, but there is a potential licensing issue. As mentioned previously in various places on OGA, we said
The general consensus is changing now. Changing to what is not yet clear, but there are several ongoing US court cases involving exactly this topic. The court's decision on these cases will inform how OGA hosts assets created with the use of AI assistance. See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork for more information.
This is NOT any sort of final determination or a permanent flagging of this submission. Regardless of the court's decisions about these tools, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. Not all submissions will be handled the same way.