> Is it okay to train AI on your assets and/or modify your assets using AI?
I don't think this is something that OGA has any jurisdiction over; only the licenses do, and the licenses grant permission for any use, even disagreeable ones (which is a core tenet of the libre philosophy since the 20th century, I'm afraid to say). Sketchfab is in a similar situation, and here's what they had to say:
> If a creator applies the NoAI tag to a model they’ve made available under a Creative Commons license, the tag may not be enforceable outside of the Sketchfab platform. This means that for CC-licensed work, the NoAI tag might not be respected because the CC license may allow use of the work by generative AI programs regardless of the tag. This is due to the way CC licenses work and is not something Sketchfab can control. https://sketchfab.com/blogs/community/restricting-generative-ai-use-of-free-models/
Creative Commons themselves are unlikely to add a restriction in, say, version 5.0 of their licenses, given their official viewpoint is that training generative models on even wholly unlicensed data is fair use, and their recommendation for those who don't want that to happen is Asking Nicely.
I will note that, if it's decided that models are non-fair·use derivative works of their training data, the attribution requirement in almost all licenses (except CC0) will mean it's still an infringement, unless you catalog and credit every piece of data that went in (not impossible!). CC0 would still be trainable on, unless the governments of the world decided to establish an entirely new opt-in right for AI training (a la moral rights), which at least in the current US climate feels unlikely (though there have been stranger carve-outs).
---
> while still claiming his game uses real artists' art for PR purpose
Hmm, "contains human assets" vs "doesn't contain generated assets"... For whatever it's worth, both Steam and itch.io expect you to disclose the existence of any of the latter. Either way, I'd imagine style mimicry would still be looked down upon and called out, even in your scenario.
KikiVoice seems to use a large model pretrained on unknown (likely unlicensed) data, so the delisting is unsurprising. I do feel like one could, whether through a similar model trained on CC0 LibriSpeech data (though similarity might suffer), or a dedicated single-voice model trained from a licensed base, like one of these (though there might not be enough data for a clean sound).
If this would be satisfactory to the site's staff, I'd gladly try my hand it, as I have some experience in the field.
very unique, and i like the (intended or not) retroification on the small version! i will however nitpick the fact that there seems to be a grey_naval_mid_wall_3_382px.png-shaped hole in your list
is it? as far as i know it just provides pre-made animations, which would in fact be infringing unless they have a very permissive license (Mesh2Motion has cc0 animations by quaternius so if one wishes to include animations then yeah)
(and there's the automatic rigging which could fall under "ai", but 1) it's been around since way before the genai trend and i don't believe it has changed much 2) if after only removing animations everything's fine then that's not it)
As far as I can tell, they're original. (The store page did contain fanart of Zundamon, but that was clearly marked as such and didn't claim to be CC0, so I assume any other fanart from this author would also be marked.)
Yes, I downloaded them earlier in order to port them into a VR platform as public avatars. (A project which I still haven't gotten around to finishing...)
...oh! Upon closer inspection, it seems that the descriptions did in fact get archived, but can't be seen unless you view the source code due to broken JavaScript. An example is the page for DJneko (djkst.zip), which also happens to have a properly-loading tag section containing "cc0". (This is also one of the models which link to the Pixiv license in the .glb file.)
Thank you both for your diligence and your generosity. 🙏
I recall the item pages for the models all containing "CC0" in their descriptions, but only some of them were archived, and Internet Archive doesn't seem to load them correctly. However, the license information is also contained within the .vrm files, but it's a bit inconsistent: some of them contain the text "CC0", while others link to Pixiv's customizable license page with everything set to "allow". I hope this is sufficient.
according to MediaInfo the metadata contains a link to suno.com, a genai music site
i'm afraid generated isn't allowed here due to copyright concerns (unless the model is known to be trained on authorized data, which suno is the opposite off)
I don't think the FSF will ever approve of a license that excludes training, since it goes against the zeroth freedom: "the freedom to use the program {or assets, in this case} for any purpose". Heck, the official opinion of Creative Commons is that training generative models on copyrighted material is likely to be fair use.
Either way, most currently available licenses require credit, which no mainstream image generator gives, so the point's kind of moot. The best one could do, in my opinion, is put up a tiny barrier that would discourage most scrapers, e.g. uploading as a .zip file (perhaps with a simple password). Unless the concern is individuals copying the style, which... hmm, I'm not sure if any sequence of words would discourage them.
for the record, this is marked as "AI Assisted, Graphics" on the itch.io page
> Is it okay to train AI on your assets and/or modify your assets using AI?
I don't think this is something that OGA has any jurisdiction over; only the licenses do, and the licenses grant permission for any use, even disagreeable ones (which is a core tenet of the libre philosophy since the 20th century, I'm afraid to say). Sketchfab is in a similar situation, and here's what they had to say:
> If a creator applies the NoAI tag to a model they’ve made available under a Creative Commons license, the tag may not be enforceable outside of the Sketchfab platform. This means that for CC-licensed work, the NoAI tag might not be respected because the CC license may allow use of the work by generative AI programs regardless of the tag. This is due to the way CC licenses work and is not something Sketchfab can control.
https://sketchfab.com/blogs/community/restricting-generative-ai-use-of-free-models/
Creative Commons themselves are unlikely to add a restriction in, say, version 5.0 of their licenses, given their official viewpoint is that training generative models on even wholly unlicensed data is fair use, and their recommendation for those who don't want that to happen is Asking Nicely.
I will note that, if it's decided that models are non-fair·use derivative works of their training data, the attribution requirement in almost all licenses (except CC0) will mean it's still an infringement, unless you catalog and credit every piece of data that went in (not impossible!). CC0 would still be trainable on, unless the governments of the world decided to establish an entirely new opt-in right for AI training (a la moral rights), which at least in the current US climate feels unlikely (though there have been stranger carve-outs).
---
> while still claiming his game uses real artists' art for PR purpose
Hmm, "contains human assets" vs "doesn't contain generated assets"... For whatever it's worth, both Steam and itch.io expect you to disclose the existence of any of the latter. Either way, I'd imagine style mimicry would still be looked down upon and called out, even in your scenario.
KikiVoice seems to use a large model pretrained on unknown (likely unlicensed) data, so the delisting is unsurprising. I do feel like one could, whether through a similar model trained on CC0 LibriSpeech data (though similarity might suffer), or a dedicated single-voice model trained from a licensed base, like one of these (though there might not be enough data for a clean sound).
If this would be satisfactory to the site's staff, I'd gladly try my hand it, as I have some experience in the field.
very unique, and i like the (intended or not) retroification on the small version! i will however nitpick the fact that there seems to be a grey_naval_mid_wall_3_382px.png-shaped hole in your list
> Since mixamo is an AI tool
is it? as far as i know it just provides pre-made animations, which would in fact be infringing unless they have a very permissive license (Mesh2Motion has cc0 animations by quaternius so if one wishes to include animations then yeah)
(and there's the automatic rigging which could fall under "ai", but 1) it's been around since way before the genai trend and i don't believe it has changed much 2) if after only removing animations everything's fine then that's not it)
As far as I can tell, they're original. (The store page did contain fanart of Zundamon, but that was clearly marked as such and didn't claim to be CC0, so I assume any other fanart from this author would also be marked.)
Yes, I downloaded them earlier in order to port them into a VR platform as public avatars. (A project which I still haven't gotten around to finishing...)
...oh! Upon closer inspection, it seems that the descriptions did in fact get archived, but can't be seen unless you view the source code due to broken JavaScript. An example is the page for DJneko (djkst.zip), which also happens to have a properly-loading tag section containing "cc0". (This is also one of the models which link to the Pixiv license in the .glb file.)
Thank you both for your diligence and your generosity. 🙏
I recall the item pages for the models all containing "CC0" in their descriptions, but only some of them were archived, and Internet Archive doesn't seem to load them correctly. However, the license information is also contained within the .vrm files, but it's a bit inconsistent: some of them contain the text "CC0", while others link to Pixiv's customizable license page with everything set to "allow". I hope this is sufficient.
according to MediaInfo the metadata contains a link to suno.com, a genai music site
i'm afraid generated isn't allowed here due to copyright concerns (unless the model is known to be trained on authorized data, which suno is the opposite off)
I don't think the FSF will ever approve of a license that excludes training, since it goes against the zeroth freedom: "the freedom to use the program {or assets, in this case} for any purpose". Heck, the official opinion of Creative Commons is that training generative models on copyrighted material is likely to be fair use.
Either way, most currently available licenses require credit, which no mainstream image generator gives, so the point's kind of moot. The best one could do, in my opinion, is put up a tiny barrier that would discourage most scrapers, e.g. uploading as a .zip file (perhaps with a simple password). Unless the concern is individuals copying the style, which... hmm, I'm not sure if any sequence of words would discourage them.
Pages