It's not clear to me it's easier to find free programmers. In general, people are more willing to work for free on their own ideas - so yes a programmer has a hard time finding an artist to work for free on their project, but artists will find it hard for a programmer to create their game for free.
I agree AI may push down the wages of people (if software can do the same job as a human, a human only has a job if they can do it more cheaply). But that's at risk of happening for programmers and artists. And even if that means it's not technically the end of 2D artists, that's still pretty disruptive if it's "well you can work, but only for lower and lower wages".
"that's because ai art generators are not intelligent or creative. they are simply imitative."
I think it's hard to define those terms in a way that says humans have it and AI doesn't. Humans are imitative too. The issue is that AI isn't yet as intelligent as humans.
I think it depends on what the "those with open licenses" are - I mean, if it was trained on a million CC BY images, and you need to abide by those licences, that's up to a million attributions to list...
Unrelated to the court cases, elsewhere I wondered whether Stable Diffusion's model licence affects the terms that people could release images under, due to the "You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses" clause ( https://opengameart.org/comment/99142#comment-99142 ). I noticed that someone has submitted an issue with Stable Diffusion making similar points at https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/issues/131 , so I thought I'd post the link here.
@MedicineStorm "With that in mind, what are some ways the end user could use the output in a way that contravenes the model license?"
I agree it's less likely for the kind of images that would be typically uploaded for use in games. But in theory someone could use AI generated art in a medical application or website, as one example.
But in general, I agree that having people post the terms of the AI tools used to create such art is a good thing.
I would say in my opinion this case can easily be a "No" on the grounds of trademark ("OGA cannot accept art that contains registered trademarks" from the guidlines). But I agree it's a very interesting case!
I would love to see this get publicity - a quick Google suggests no one seems to have noticed that WB Games may have inadvertedly allowed derivative works for a bunch of their work - but I can see it fair that OGA shouldn't have to be the guinea pig here.
Btw, just to clarify the situation: I don't think the recommendation or requirement to obtain explicit permission to upload (as discussed in link #3, and https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updates... ) did make it into the rules/guidelines, unless I'm missing it? Although if this issue only comes up in a manner that people are unsure on once every 7 years, there is perhaps the argument that it seems fine dealing with it on a case by case basis.
But yes, I know it's always been a rule that authors can request their art be removed (which ended up being the case for the Broforce example anyway).
As an aside I note that there are also clear examples of sprites ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Broforce_sprites ) which does confuse me now, as the discussion in link #3 seemed to focus almost entirely on the screenshots (and the idea that creating derivative works to use in games was unobvious).
@drummyfish - I think it's fine for OGA to choose not to host. I do agree with your comments on free-culture though. On the one hand I think one needs to be careful if someone mistakenly used or misunderstood a licence (and either people want to be nice, or avoid public or legal battles etc). But it isn't unethical IMO to use a work under those four freedoms and according to that licence. The idea of legal-but-not-ethical-to-create-derivative-works would risk polluting free art with content that is legally free but unethical to use. But as I say, I'm still okay with OGA not hosting - indeed, if that's the view of the authors, that's all the more reason not to share it.
@Joshagibby: If someone wants to licence an output image under say CC0, it no longer has any of those usage restrictions on the subsequent use of that image. I'm not questioning why they've done it that way, just noting that these terms exist.
(N.B., the licence doesn't seem to have any restrictions on use regarding sex or gore; see "Attachment A" in the link.)
@MedicineStorm: It's under Section III, paragraph 6 - in full:
"6. The Output You Generate. Except as set forth herein, Licensor claims no rights in the Output You generate using the Model. You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses. No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License."
The wording in the summary blurb seems fine - but the full licence text adds the word "subsequent" (i.e. "subsequent uses" of the output) which is what had me wondering.
Regarding the idea that they're just disclaiming liability, I see what you mean - but it's the way that sentence is followed up with "No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License". Maybe it's just a poorly worded limitation of liability - but it's the way that's followed by that line. I suppose it's true that the line "No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License" no longer contains the word "subsequent". But I feel the licence is unclear.
It's good that it says "Licensor claims no rights in the Output You generate using the Model." which as you say would in itself imply you can licence and redistribute as you like, except the full licence text qualifies that with "Except as set forth herein".
"Furthermore, it seems like the restrictions being discussed do not apply to the output at all, just the model that generated the output."
Paragraph 6 refers to the "output" though.
Essentially the question is "can derivative works under licence A be relicensed as licence B", which is hard when licence A is a relatively new licence.
I agree Bitcoin isn't subversive - but that also means that I can't agree with the OP about it just being laundering for the mafia. That isn't supported by evidence imo, and the argument about whether subverting the Government is good or bad is irrelevant, because Bitcoin isn't that.
When the Ukranian Government had their defence donation fund stopped by the private US platform they were using, Bitcoin allowed an alternative source not under the control of a third party. There are surely other less productive uses of electricity than that (such as US Christmas tree lights), which don't get this hate. I agree there needs to be a push for sustainability, but that's more transitioning to renewable electricity sources, rather than trying to say some usages are more worthy than others.
"You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses. No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License."
So if I read it right, this seems problematic for redistribution of the output (i.e., generated images) - the "Use Restrictions" don't just apply to the output itself, but subsequent uses of the output. Which seems incompatible with licencing under CC0 (or any licence that would be considered Free/Open), since that licence has no such use restrictions.
Admittedly it seems unlikely that this particular artwork could be used in such a way (hmm, maybe someone makes a medical advice website and wants to illustrate a section on medieval plague...) But more generally, you could have images that seem fine on their own, but could be used in violation of the Use Restrictions.
It doesn't help that the wording is vague (in what way is the author "accountable" if someone takes the images and uses them against the Use Restrictions?) It doesn't explicitly say that Output must be distributed with the Use Restrictions, but it seems worth being wary about.
I also think there's confusion around Stable Diffusion because AFAICT the source is under a standard Open Source licence, but the model is not. Also note, I'm not making any judgement on the pros or cons of the Use Restrictions - just noting that they don't seem to be compatible; it would be the same with any non-AI derivative work that was derived from a non-Free/Open licence.
It's not clear to me it's easier to find free programmers. In general, people are more willing to work for free on their own ideas - so yes a programmer has a hard time finding an artist to work for free on their project, but artists will find it hard for a programmer to create their game for free.
I agree AI may push down the wages of people (if software can do the same job as a human, a human only has a job if they can do it more cheaply). But that's at risk of happening for programmers and artists. And even if that means it's not technically the end of 2D artists, that's still pretty disruptive if it's "well you can work, but only for lower and lower wages".
"that's because ai art generators are not intelligent or creative. they are simply imitative."
I think it's hard to define those terms in a way that says humans have it and AI doesn't. Humans are imitative too. The issue is that AI isn't yet as intelligent as humans.
I think it depends on what the "those with open licenses" are - I mean, if it was trained on a million CC BY images, and you need to abide by those licences, that's up to a million attributions to list...
Unrelated to the court cases, elsewhere I wondered whether Stable Diffusion's model licence affects the terms that people could release images under, due to the "You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses" clause ( https://opengameart.org/comment/99142#comment-99142 ). I noticed that someone has submitted an issue with Stable Diffusion making similar points at https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/issues/131 , so I thought I'd post the link here.
Unfortunately there's been no response though.
Sorry I forgot to reply to this:
@MedicineStorm "With that in mind, what are some ways the end user could use the output in a way that contravenes the model license?"
I agree it's less likely for the kind of images that would be typically uploaded for use in games. But in theory someone could use AI generated art in a medical application or website, as one example.
But in general, I agree that having people post the terms of the AI tools used to create such art is a good thing.
I would say in my opinion this case can easily be a "No" on the grounds of trademark ("OGA cannot accept art that contains registered trademarks" from the guidlines). But I agree it's a very interesting case!
I would love to see this get publicity - a quick Google suggests no one seems to have noticed that WB Games may have inadvertedly allowed derivative works for a bunch of their work - but I can see it fair that OGA shouldn't have to be the guinea pig here.
Btw, just to clarify the situation: I don't think the recommendation or requirement to obtain explicit permission to upload (as discussed in link #3, and https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updates... ) did make it into the rules/guidelines, unless I'm missing it? Although if this issue only comes up in a manner that people are unsure on once every 7 years, there is perhaps the argument that it seems fine dealing with it on a case by case basis.
But yes, I know it's always been a rule that authors can request their art be removed (which ended up being the case for the Broforce example anyway).
"Besides this there is a myriad of other proprietary game screenshots/animations/videos like that (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broforce_miniboss_animated.gif) from which I can rip their assets and happily upload here."
Or apparently not, as shown by link 3 ;)
As an aside I note that there are also clear examples of sprites ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Broforce_sprites ) which does confuse me now, as the discussion in link #3 seemed to focus almost entirely on the screenshots (and the idea that creating derivative works to use in games was unobvious).
@drummyfish - I think it's fine for OGA to choose not to host. I do agree with your comments on free-culture though. On the one hand I think one needs to be careful if someone mistakenly used or misunderstood a licence (and either people want to be nice, or avoid public or legal battles etc). But it isn't unethical IMO to use a work under those four freedoms and according to that licence. The idea of legal-but-not-ethical-to-create-derivative-works would risk polluting free art with content that is legally free but unethical to use. But as I say, I'm still okay with OGA not hosting - indeed, if that's the view of the authors, that's all the more reason not to share it.
I think that the way the rule at https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-takedown is phrased is very pro-free-culture (it points out the implications of the licence).
@Joshagibby: If someone wants to licence an output image under say CC0, it no longer has any of those usage restrictions on the subsequent use of that image. I'm not questioning why they've done it that way, just noting that these terms exist.
(N.B., the licence doesn't seem to have any restrictions on use regarding sex or gore; see "Attachment A" in the link.)
@MedicineStorm: It's under Section III, paragraph 6 - in full:
"6. The Output You Generate. Except as set forth herein, Licensor claims no rights in the Output You generate using the Model. You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses. No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License."
The wording in the summary blurb seems fine - but the full licence text adds the word "subsequent" (i.e. "subsequent uses" of the output) which is what had me wondering.
Regarding the idea that they're just disclaiming liability, I see what you mean - but it's the way that sentence is followed up with "No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License". Maybe it's just a poorly worded limitation of liability - but it's the way that's followed by that line. I suppose it's true that the line "No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License" no longer contains the word "subsequent". But I feel the licence is unclear.
It's good that it says "Licensor claims no rights in the Output You generate using the Model." which as you say would in itself imply you can licence and redistribute as you like, except the full licence text qualifies that with "Except as set forth herein".
"Furthermore, it seems like the restrictions being discussed do not apply to the output at all, just the model that generated the output."
Paragraph 6 refers to the "output" though.
Essentially the question is "can derivative works under licence A be relicensed as licence B", which is hard when licence A is a relatively new licence.
I agree Bitcoin isn't subversive - but that also means that I can't agree with the OP about it just being laundering for the mafia. That isn't supported by evidence imo, and the argument about whether subverting the Government is good or bad is irrelevant, because Bitcoin isn't that.
When the Ukranian Government had their defence donation fund stopped by the private US platform they were using, Bitcoin allowed an alternative source not under the control of a third party. There are surely other less productive uses of electricity than that (such as US Christmas tree lights), which don't get this hate. I agree there needs to be a push for sustainability, but that's more transitioning to renewable electricity sources, rather than trying to say some usages are more worthy than others.
From https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-license :
"You are accountable for the Output you generate and its subsequent uses. No use of the output can contravene any provision as stated in the License."
So if I read it right, this seems problematic for redistribution of the output (i.e., generated images) - the "Use Restrictions" don't just apply to the output itself, but subsequent uses of the output. Which seems incompatible with licencing under CC0 (or any licence that would be considered Free/Open), since that licence has no such use restrictions.
Admittedly it seems unlikely that this particular artwork could be used in such a way (hmm, maybe someone makes a medical advice website and wants to illustrate a section on medieval plague...) But more generally, you could have images that seem fine on their own, but could be used in violation of the Use Restrictions.
It doesn't help that the wording is vague (in what way is the author "accountable" if someone takes the images and uses them against the Use Restrictions?) It doesn't explicitly say that Output must be distributed with the Use Restrictions, but it seems worth being wary about.
I also think there's confusion around Stable Diffusion because AFAICT the source is under a standard Open Source licence, but the model is not. Also note, I'm not making any judgement on the pros or cons of the Use Restrictions - just noting that they don't seem to be compatible; it would be the same with any non-AI derivative work that was derived from a non-Free/Open licence.
The article doesn't seem to link to a source from NASA saying what's changed. It also seems to be based on much older articles e.g. https://www.diyphotography.net/nasa-makes-entire-media-library-publicly-... from 2017.
See https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/what-license-are-images-available-in-... for some discussion on the copyright/licence status of NASA images.
Also even if they are public domain, see https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/derivative-works-from-things-that-are... for a discussion on whether that applies in countries other than the US.
What's the state of that old bug where the field for later versions was being set even if the user didn't set it?
https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/bug-allow-later-license-versions-is-n... says that the "later versions" was hidden because of that bug. That was 2013, I don't know whether the bug was fixed (and the database entries voided, or is still present?)
Pages