Personally, I don't like the push/pull very much. Should be noted, the pull animation is just identical to push in this case.
When pushing/pulling, the legs should be bent in a different directions to make it look more realistic. I get that it doesn't have to be that realistic or anything, but thsi is a pretty simplistic one. Perhaps it'd be better to redraw it.
A "push" I would think would have the character leaning toward the object, while a pull actually "pulls" back.
Using the emotes third frame as a base is what I'm looking at for pull here--have the model lean back, arms stretched out front, as the legs are moving as well.
Push could be derived from Eliza's combat animation as its leaning forward.
I can't think of anything useful for carry other than "we need an actual lift animation, too". Carry would be fine on its own.
EDIT: Here's the card I opened on the ULPC for this:
There is no clear information on this at this time. Like I said above, I still subscribe to the belief that this is pattern-recognition algorithm, not derivative assets. Once the courts settle this matter, that is presumably what OGA will follow, whether its pro-AI art or against.
In terms of simple things like rotations, though, that's pretty clear. If its your work and your alterring it, well, there's no real problem there. Using AI to "enhance" an image by making it larger is probably pretty safe. Same with rotations. Rotations I have noticed can be really tricky with programs like aseprite. For me this is one of my biggest issues; rotating an asset to get a different angle of a sword, for example, and keep the same aesthetic, is quite annoying. Same thing goes for trying to get animations out, like having hair flowing behind a character. This is really tricky to deal with properly so I have been hesitant to push into this.
I have dabbled in AI a bit, but I am hesitant to use it for spriting yet at this time. Mostly I use it for references and concept art.
"And, even if it is, does it offend your sensibilities as an artist."
For most artists this is always going to be "no". It is artists who are primarily concerned about this, after all.
However, the line must be drawn somewhere. If you are concerned with offending artists, then you should never, ever, ever use AI art. There's literally nothing you can do that won't offend artists by using AI art at this point in time. If AI art becomes more acceptable in the future, such tensions will likely lessen, but many will still find offense that AI art is used in any way. Frankly, though, this is not the best question to be asking.
The biggest problem with this debate in general is honestly pretty simple--a lot of artists want to make money off of their art. The problem, however, is that art just isn't very profitable. It never has been, and its only gotten worse over time. And its not because of AI generation--its because there's too many artists out there flooding the market. The best artists will still be able to make good money, but lower-end artists are going to constantly find themselves competing with one another. AI art is not good enough to replace good artists, but it can replace "bad" art, which is the main thing it does. Otherwise, AI is primarily a tool than can enhance art-related projects.
Keep in mind, there's puritan artists out there who hate anything to do with digital art. I believe that used to be a big debate as well in the past--digital art isn't "authentic" art. Those comments aren't common anymore, but they used to be.
The current run I'm using is a combination of these run animations and ElizaWy's versions, though I think ElizaWy took inspiration from these run animations to begin with. Diagonals, however, are currently not a thing being used anywhere. I'm considering how potentially we could start to actually enable this. One option is in the ULPC, perhaps I can create an alternate body sheet containing just diagonals. That might make things cleaner instead of just trying to drop diagonals onto the same sheet.
The Foreman really wanted support for diagonals, but there's so few diagonal base animations. Still, having walk/run diagonals could be a useful starting point.
I haven't been commenting on these threads, but my take is basically this:
IDK if it would be considered "fair use" or not, but I still don't think it qualifies as copyright infringement. Its basically like an artist looking up a reference and using that to create something inspired by it. It would only infringe on the copyright if the asset is too similar to the original asset. I know the argument is "they're taking existing art, editing it, and mixing it with other things", but I don't think that's actually what's happening, nor did the existing court cases that came out make that argument.
The courts basically said AI art "prompts" are like making a commission from an artist. Its the artist's interpretation of what information you give them, and by default, the artist in question owns the copyright. However, only humans can own copyrights. For AI generated art, the "artist" in this case is the algorithm, not a person. As such, AI generated art without much human input cannot be copyrighted.
By starting with the assumption that this is like a commissioned work, they're already somewhat setting the narrative of where their thinking lies here.
Even though that is my stance on AI art, we will see how the courts decide this, and I do have one more comment...
I have no sympathy for any companies claiming "yeah we're not using copyrighted assets" and they actually are. That is blatantly lying and is a potential criminal offense. In such a case they'd be better off not saying anything than outright lying about it.
Oh, one other thing:
"evolving" an image I think _would_ qualify as being derivative. Because you're using that image as the starting point. The algorithms are created by scanning existing art and putting that into the algorithm, but its starting from scratch normally. It starts with a blank canvas and simply follows the algorithm. Evolving art, however, starts from an existing artwork and applies the algorithm over it. That is a much different situation.
Yeah recreating them might be an option, but I'm still hesitant to make modifications to base animations. Even though it probably wouldn't be THAT hard to do.
Also, I double-checked. The Grab animation is by Daneeklu. To my knowledge Daneeklu is not one of the users who has added support for OGA-BY, so that's a problem in using Grab.
Another consideration I had as well: it might be better to recreate these anyway. The only one that might be viable to keep on its own is Carry. The reason I'm bringing this up is because the legs could be a problem--the walk frame for a push, ideally, should have the push ACTUALLY pushing the legs back along the ground. Now, its possible Evert's animations did do this, I still have to download and check the whole sheet.
"Also, an animation for holding an object in front of the character as well would be amazing, so we can choose between carrying smaller objects in front of us and then for a larger crate an animation above the head. Also, a palms up facing out push would be nice like you're really leaning into the push with effort. Everts only does a kind of gripped on sides push."
That sounds pretty similar to how thrust might look or slash. Just tweak the arms in those positions a bit and add the walk frames. That would probably be fairly easy to do honestly.
"I'm not really a pixel artist myself, I code."
Same lol! I've always been more of a coder than an artist.
Well, I guess I can call myself a pixel artist now, but I'm still a bit of an amateur. Its not like I've been doing pixel art for 15 years or anything. Its more like I dabbled in it a bit 11-15 years ago, and occasionally came back here and there to do more stuff.
I'd have to argue I didn't REALLY get into a lot more pixel art until this past year again. I think my stuff now is a huge improvement but I still have to work from a base. That's why I came back to LPC in the first place.
And yeah, carrying objects on top of the head is a common thing. Its not like... as common as you might think, but it is somewhat common.
However, that's actually really easy to do anyway. The only real issue is cleaning up the base walk frames where you cut the arms out and flip them to being above the head. More difficult, I think, is having a "pick up" and "put down" animation. That IMO is far more interesting (and harder).
Ah, thanks for sharing that link. I can bookmark it. Evert is willing to support OGA-BY as long as the original assets are, but wasn't aware that they actually were.
Redshrike, Wulax, and Makrohn are among the ones who added universal OGA-BY support. We should be good there, but I'd rather wait for a response from Evert on that one assuming Evert is even still active here.
"About licensing: I'd love to make this OGA-BY, but to the best of my knowledge the originals these are derived from do not include that licence. Do let me know if that is incorrect."
Heh, okay. I was just forwarded to these assets. I have dug into all of this and yes, the base assets are in OGA-BY. MedicineStorm reached out to a lot of people asking for confirmation on this. That being said, MANY creators early on supported the ability for their assets to be usable in DRM environments (basically Steam / Mobile) long before OGA-BY existed anyway. Including Redshrike and Wulax.
It'd be great if this did have OGA-BY support, then I could add them to the Expanded ULPC and start filling out animation frames for various assets:
Keep in mind, only the body model itself is OGA-BY. I'm not aware of the rest of the assets, we'd have to check them on a case-by-case basis.
As far as I am aware, Redshrike, Wulax, and Makrohn added support for OGA-BY, as have I. Daneeklu I haven't seen any evidence did, while Joe White I don't know. But IMO the most important thing is the body models anyway.
EDIT: I see, so Grab is by Daneeklu. Yeah, that's where the blocker is for that one.
As for the body models:
I -think- Pregnant and Muscular do not support OGA-BY. Male, Female, and "Teen" all do.
Mostly because I couldn't find them, they weren't in any of the common places. Eliza didn't have them and they weren't in the repo either (in the ULPC repo, idle/sit/jump/run were in there, they just weren't in the spritesheet yet).
Plus, those assets appear to all be in CC-BY-SA 3.0. So we'd have to make the entire base body model set CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well when they're all currently OGA-BY 3.0, CC-BY 3.0, and CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Its possible push/grab/carry wouldn't be that hard to animate. Its based on the standard walk cycle, so we might be able to start from the same walk animations. However, there is a bit of a problem--the arms do move around. So that would require more effort.
Maybe there's a way I can still include them and just say Push/Carry/Grab are (for now) only CC-BY-SA 3.0 even though the rest of the assets are OGA-BY and CC-BY / CC-BY-SA.
Either way, though, I do intend on eventually adding more animations as they are available. However, I don't intend on adding new ones on a whim. I'd prefer to just drop them in when there's a good chunk available to add. Also, push/pull isn't _that_ necessary. We can just have a basic push just by walking into an object.
Finally had a chance to look at this.
Personally, I don't like the push/pull very much. Should be noted, the pull animation is just identical to push in this case.
When pushing/pulling, the legs should be bent in a different directions to make it look more realistic. I get that it doesn't have to be that realistic or anything, but thsi is a pretty simplistic one. Perhaps it'd be better to redraw it.
A "push" I would think would have the character leaning toward the object, while a pull actually "pulls" back.
Using the emotes third frame as a base is what I'm looking at for pull here--have the model lean back, arms stretched out front, as the legs are moving as well.
Push could be derived from Eliza's combat animation as its leaning forward.
I can't think of anything useful for carry other than "we need an actual lift animation, too". Carry would be fine on its own.
EDIT: Here's the card I opened on the ULPC for this:
https://github.com/sanderfrenken/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Gen...
I probably won't work on this any time soon, but I have my eye on it.
Intriguing... I wonder if this could work as an LPC enemy, too. It looks close enough that it might just work.
"Is this fair and lawful?"
There is no clear information on this at this time. Like I said above, I still subscribe to the belief that this is pattern-recognition algorithm, not derivative assets. Once the courts settle this matter, that is presumably what OGA will follow, whether its pro-AI art or against.
In terms of simple things like rotations, though, that's pretty clear. If its your work and your alterring it, well, there's no real problem there. Using AI to "enhance" an image by making it larger is probably pretty safe. Same with rotations. Rotations I have noticed can be really tricky with programs like aseprite. For me this is one of my biggest issues; rotating an asset to get a different angle of a sword, for example, and keep the same aesthetic, is quite annoying. Same thing goes for trying to get animations out, like having hair flowing behind a character. This is really tricky to deal with properly so I have been hesitant to push into this.
I have dabbled in AI a bit, but I am hesitant to use it for spriting yet at this time. Mostly I use it for references and concept art.
"And, even if it is, does it offend your sensibilities as an artist."
For most artists this is always going to be "no". It is artists who are primarily concerned about this, after all.
However, the line must be drawn somewhere. If you are concerned with offending artists, then you should never, ever, ever use AI art. There's literally nothing you can do that won't offend artists by using AI art at this point in time. If AI art becomes more acceptable in the future, such tensions will likely lessen, but many will still find offense that AI art is used in any way. Frankly, though, this is not the best question to be asking.
The biggest problem with this debate in general is honestly pretty simple--a lot of artists want to make money off of their art. The problem, however, is that art just isn't very profitable. It never has been, and its only gotten worse over time. And its not because of AI generation--its because there's too many artists out there flooding the market. The best artists will still be able to make good money, but lower-end artists are going to constantly find themselves competing with one another. AI art is not good enough to replace good artists, but it can replace "bad" art, which is the main thing it does. Otherwise, AI is primarily a tool than can enhance art-related projects.
Keep in mind, there's puritan artists out there who hate anything to do with digital art. I believe that used to be a big debate as well in the past--digital art isn't "authentic" art. Those comments aren't common anymore, but they used to be.
I forgot about this... bookmarking.
The current run I'm using is a combination of these run animations and ElizaWy's versions, though I think ElizaWy took inspiration from these run animations to begin with. Diagonals, however, are currently not a thing being used anywhere. I'm considering how potentially we could start to actually enable this. One option is in the ULPC, perhaps I can create an alternate body sheet containing just diagonals. That might make things cleaner instead of just trying to drop diagonals onto the same sheet.
The Foreman really wanted support for diagonals, but there's so few diagonal base animations. Still, having walk/run diagonals could be a useful starting point.
I haven't been commenting on these threads, but my take is basically this:
IDK if it would be considered "fair use" or not, but I still don't think it qualifies as copyright infringement. Its basically like an artist looking up a reference and using that to create something inspired by it. It would only infringe on the copyright if the asset is too similar to the original asset. I know the argument is "they're taking existing art, editing it, and mixing it with other things", but I don't think that's actually what's happening, nor did the existing court cases that came out make that argument.
The courts basically said AI art "prompts" are like making a commission from an artist. Its the artist's interpretation of what information you give them, and by default, the artist in question owns the copyright. However, only humans can own copyrights. For AI generated art, the "artist" in this case is the algorithm, not a person. As such, AI generated art without much human input cannot be copyrighted.
By starting with the assumption that this is like a commissioned work, they're already somewhat setting the narrative of where their thinking lies here.
Even though that is my stance on AI art, we will see how the courts decide this, and I do have one more comment...
I have no sympathy for any companies claiming "yeah we're not using copyrighted assets" and they actually are. That is blatantly lying and is a potential criminal offense. In such a case they'd be better off not saying anything than outright lying about it.
Oh, one other thing:
"evolving" an image I think _would_ qualify as being derivative. Because you're using that image as the starting point. The algorithms are created by scanning existing art and putting that into the algorithm, but its starting from scratch normally. It starts with a blank canvas and simply follows the algorithm. Evolving art, however, starts from an existing artwork and applies the algorithm over it. That is a much different situation.
Yeah recreating them might be an option, but I'm still hesitant to make modifications to base animations. Even though it probably wouldn't be THAT hard to do.
Also, I double-checked. The Grab animation is by Daneeklu. To my knowledge Daneeklu is not one of the users who has added support for OGA-BY, so that's a problem in using Grab.
Another consideration I had as well: it might be better to recreate these anyway. The only one that might be viable to keep on its own is Carry. The reason I'm bringing this up is because the legs could be a problem--the walk frame for a push, ideally, should have the push ACTUALLY pushing the legs back along the ground. Now, its possible Evert's animations did do this, I still have to download and check the whole sheet.
"Also, an animation for holding an object in front of the character as well would be amazing, so we can choose between carrying smaller objects in front of us and then for a larger crate an animation above the head. Also, a palms up facing out push would be nice like you're really leaning into the push with effort. Everts only does a kind of gripped on sides push."
That sounds pretty similar to how thrust might look or slash. Just tweak the arms in those positions a bit and add the walk frames. That would probably be fairly easy to do honestly.
"I'm not really a pixel artist myself, I code."
Same lol! I've always been more of a coder than an artist.
Well, I guess I can call myself a pixel artist now, but I'm still a bit of an amateur. Its not like I've been doing pixel art for 15 years or anything. Its more like I dabbled in it a bit 11-15 years ago, and occasionally came back here and there to do more stuff.
I'd have to argue I didn't REALLY get into a lot more pixel art until this past year again. I think my stuff now is a huge improvement but I still have to work from a base. That's why I came back to LPC in the first place.
And yeah, carrying objects on top of the head is a common thing. Its not like... as common as you might think, but it is somewhat common.
However, that's actually really easy to do anyway. The only real issue is cleaning up the base walk frames where you cut the arms out and flip them to being above the head. More difficult, I think, is having a "pick up" and "put down" animation. That IMO is far more interesting (and harder).
I'll bookmark this for later. I thought I saw Push/Carry/Pull a while back, but I couldn't find it earlier.
Ah, thanks for sharing that link. I can bookmark it. Evert is willing to support OGA-BY as long as the original assets are, but wasn't aware that they actually were.
Redshrike, Wulax, and Makrohn are among the ones who added universal OGA-BY support. We should be good there, but I'd rather wait for a response from Evert on that one assuming Evert is even still active here.
"About licensing: I'd love to make this OGA-BY, but to the best of my knowledge the originals these are derived from do not include that licence. Do let me know if that is incorrect."
Heh, okay. I was just forwarded to these assets. I have dug into all of this and yes, the base assets are in OGA-BY. MedicineStorm reached out to a lot of people asking for confirmation on this. That being said, MANY creators early on supported the ability for their assets to be usable in DRM environments (basically Steam / Mobile) long before OGA-BY existed anyway. Including Redshrike and Wulax.
It'd be great if this did have OGA-BY support, then I could add them to the Expanded ULPC and start filling out animation frames for various assets:
https://opengameart.org/content/expanded-universal-lpc-spritesheet-idle-...
Keep in mind, only the body model itself is OGA-BY. I'm not aware of the rest of the assets, we'd have to check them on a case-by-case basis.
As far as I am aware, Redshrike, Wulax, and Makrohn added support for OGA-BY, as have I. Daneeklu I haven't seen any evidence did, while Joe White I don't know. But IMO the most important thing is the body models anyway.
EDIT: I see, so Grab is by Daneeklu. Yeah, that's where the blocker is for that one.
As for the body models:
I -think- Pregnant and Muscular do not support OGA-BY. Male, Female, and "Teen" all do.
Mostly because I couldn't find them, they weren't in any of the common places. Eliza didn't have them and they weren't in the repo either (in the ULPC repo, idle/sit/jump/run were in there, they just weren't in the spritesheet yet).
Plus, those assets appear to all be in CC-BY-SA 3.0. So we'd have to make the entire base body model set CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well when they're all currently OGA-BY 3.0, CC-BY 3.0, and CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Its possible push/grab/carry wouldn't be that hard to animate. Its based on the standard walk cycle, so we might be able to start from the same walk animations. However, there is a bit of a problem--the arms do move around. So that would require more effort.
Maybe there's a way I can still include them and just say Push/Carry/Grab are (for now) only CC-BY-SA 3.0 even though the rest of the assets are OGA-BY and CC-BY / CC-BY-SA.
Either way, though, I do intend on eventually adding more animations as they are available. However, I don't intend on adding new ones on a whim. I'd prefer to just drop them in when there's a good chunk available to add. Also, push/pull isn't _that_ necessary. We can just have a basic push just by walking into an object.
Pages