If an OGA asset description, tutorial note, resource-request reply, commission brief, or project-showcase write-up gets flagged by an AI text detector, how much should that matter?
It depends:
How much should that matter concerning OGA submission policy? Or How much should that matter to you, who may have a different stance on AI than other people?
For OGA submission policy:
✅Asset description: None. We don't care if someone used AI to write the text description on an asset submission.
❔Tutorial: Meh; Somewhat. A forum tutorial written by AI is likely to be less useful than a human-crafted tutorial. AI tends to be an average of all creativity, and tutorials need to be expert content. Not forbidden, but probably not well-received.
❔Resource-request reply: Are we talkking about an AI generated asset being provided to fulfill an asset request? In all likelihood, that would be removed. It is up to the requestor. It is highly likely the requestor does NOT feel an AI generated asset is acceptable since they could have generated the asset themselves using AI. The fact the requestor is making an asset request on OGA suggests they want a distinctly non-AI generated asset.
✅Commission breif: None. If the commissioner wants to use AI to write their commission request, that's their choice. Artists can choose to take that commission or not.
✅project-showcase write-up: None. We don't care if someone used AI to create a write-up for their project-showcase. However, it is unlikely to be received by the community as well as it would if it were not an AI generated write-up.
❌Downloadable Asset: (You didn't ask, but worth mentioning) This is specifically about an asset submitted to OGA; Graphics, music, sound effects, textures, 3D models. Any officially submitted asset created with the assistance of generative AI at any stage of the creation process will be flagged and download-disabled.
"does the post include asset type, game-use context, license, source/ownership note, transformation step, file format, preview details, attribution, or what the contributor actually made?"
All OGA asset submissions include asset type, license, attribution (source/ownership & attribution are the same thing), modification description (in what way was the asset transformed from the original), file format, a preview ("preview details"), and optionally what the contributor actually made (see modification description).
"does it separate a real asset/tutorial/request/project discussion from marketplace spam...
Yes: This isn't a marketplace, everything is free. AI generated assets are not the same as spam. Spam is deleted, AI assets are flagged but kept in place.
"...external download gating...
Yes: AI-generated assets are download-disabled.
"...watermarked previews...
No: Watermarked previews are permitted; watermarked assets are not.
"...generic SEO text...
Yes: SEO content = spam. Spam is removed.
"...or unclear ownership?"
Yes: unclear ownership is a potential licensing issue. Submissions with licensing issues are download-disabled until the ownership can be clarified. If it is not clarified within about a week, the submission is removed entirely.
"does it stand without making people click away?"
Matter of opinion: No one can be forced to click away, nor forced to stay and admire. Each OGA member may have varying opinions on AI content and they are free to avoid submissions with AI descriptions or not.
"does it avoid copyrighted or trademark-infringing material, undisclosed AI asset issues, unclear-source uploads, and another creator's work without permission?"
Unknown, so default "No": the copyright and trademark infringing status of AI assets is uncertain in the eyes of the law. We hope that changes soon, but for now, because of that uncertainty, all AI related assets on OGA are download-disabled.
"is any affiliation disclosed if a tool, service, asset pack, commission, or workflow is discussed?"
Yes: Anyone submitting AI related assets are required to disclose which AI tool was used, including version, and a link the the terms of service page for that tool. Some people forget at first; They are asked to rectify that oversight quickly. If they do not, their submissions are removed. If they lie about it, they are banned.
"are false positives and false negatives treated as normal detector limitations?"
Yes: OGA does not rely on purely automated AI detection. We may use AI detection tools to inform our decision, but the most reliable AI detector remains human admins who know they are fallable and adjust accordingly. This is also why AI related submissions are flagged for further review, not simply auto-deleted.
Rather, if ULPCSCG is using the base assets from this submission, the license for the bases in the Universal Character Generator must stop listing OGA-BY (doubtful) However, if BenCreating can be contacted and agrees to also license these derivatives as OGA-BY as well, then all downstream uses can also inlcude OGA-BY regardless of which bases are being used. I suspect BenCreating would have no issue with adding that license since he probably derived these before the OGA-BY license was added to the original. Never-the-less, we need his permission for these derivatives to be licensed OGA-BY.
"Can I legally choose OGA-BY 3.0?"
For what? Using these bases? No. But is that what you're using? or are you using the nearly identical looking bases from https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ? If you are using the bases from that other original submission, then yes you can legally choose OGA-BY 3.0
I think you've already posted it in the best way you can: A forum post with a link to the tool.
functional tools are not "assets" in same sense spritesheet graphics are, so they should not be submitted on OpenGameArt as assets via the "Submit Art" form. However, posting on the forum and linking to the tool (what you have done above) is appropriate.
Again, this conflates inspiration with derivation. These are not the same thing.
don't human pixel artists do the exact same thing? They'll look at other art for insiration and techniques.
Yes, they do. But it depends on HOW they do it that determines if it is inspiration or derivation. Don't humans also steal art? Rip assets from commercial games (from other artists) and change a few things here and there? Don't humans kitbash assets from pixel artists without permission and try to pass it off as their own work?
Using the car analogy, there is a difference in looking-at-a-car-with-4-wheels-and-making-your-own-version-but-still-with-4-wheels vs copying-Henry-Ford's-blueprints-so-you-don't-have-to-understand-how-to-engineer-a-working-car-then-changing-some-features-around-so-no-one-knows-you-stole-the-plans.
Using the soup analogy, preferring homemade soup over factory soup is one thing, but when the reason the factory soup tastes like your grandma's homemade soup is because the factory owner stole your grandma's recipie? That's something else.
Admittedly that is a hyperbolic oversimplification, but the point is, there are different ways to take art and produce some other art. Some of those ways produce new creations that are simply inspired by other art. Other ways produce derivatives, not new art, that is made up of stolen components of someone else's art.
Is that what AI is doing? I don't know for sure. It's still being decided by copyright law.
How were these made?
It depends:
All OGA asset submissions include asset type, license, attribution (source/ownership & attribution are the same thing), modification description (in what way was the asset transformed from the original), file format, a preview ("preview details"), and optionally what the contributor actually made (see modification description).
Yes: This isn't a marketplace, everything is free. AI generated assets are not the same as spam. Spam is deleted, AI assets are flagged but kept in place.
Yes: AI-generated assets are download-disabled.
No: Watermarked previews are permitted; watermarked assets are not.
Yes: SEO content = spam. Spam is removed.
Yes: unclear ownership is a potential licensing issue. Submissions with licensing issues are download-disabled until the ownership can be clarified. If it is not clarified within about a week, the submission is removed entirely.
Matter of opinion: No one can be forced to click away, nor forced to stay and admire. Each OGA member may have varying opinions on AI content and they are free to avoid submissions with AI descriptions or not.
Unknown, so default "No": the copyright and trademark infringing status of AI assets is uncertain in the eyes of the law. We hope that changes soon, but for now, because of that uncertainty, all AI related assets on OGA are download-disabled.
Yes: Anyone submitting AI related assets are required to disclose which AI tool was used, including version, and a link the the terms of service page for that tool. Some people forget at first; They are asked to rectify that oversight quickly. If they do not, their submissions are removed. If they lie about it, they are banned.
Yes: OGA does not rely on purely automated AI detection. We may use AI detection tools to inform our decision, but the most reliable AI detector remains human admins who know they are fallable and adjust accordingly. This is also why AI related submissions are flagged for further review, not simply auto-deleted.
👍
Were any of Ableton Live Suite's AI tools used in the production of these tracks?
@MedievalGameDev1: Please include in the descritpion: a link to the AI technology's terms of service page, not the FAQ page.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Because the bases used by ULPCSCG (and Death's Darling's Revised bases) are NOT from this submission. They are from https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... which includes a note about the specific components within that are also licensed OGA-BY.
Rather, if ULPCSCG is using the base assets from this submission, the license for the bases in the Universal Character Generator must stop listing OGA-BY (doubtful)
However, if BenCreating can be contacted and agrees to also license these derivatives as OGA-BY as well, then all downstream uses can also inlcude OGA-BY regardless of which bases are being used. I suspect BenCreating would have no issue with adding that license since he probably derived these before the OGA-BY license was added to the original. Never-the-less, we need his permission for these derivatives to be licensed OGA-BY.
For what? Using these bases? No. But is that what you're using? or are you using the nearly identical looking bases from https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ? If you are using the bases from that other original submission, then yes you can legally choose OGA-BY 3.0
@MedievalGameDev1 - Please include in the description:the AI technology used, including the version,and a link to the AI technology's terms of use page. See https://opengameart.org/content/art-submission-guidelines#aiEDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
I think you've already posted it in the best way you can: A forum post with a link to the tool.
functional tools are not "assets" in same sense spritesheet graphics are, so they should not be submitted on OpenGameArt as assets via the "Submit Art" form. However, posting on the forum and linking to the tool (what you have done above) is appropriate.
Again, this conflates inspiration with derivation. These are not the same thing.
Yes, they do. But it depends on HOW they do it that determines if it is inspiration or derivation. Don't humans also steal art? Rip assets from commercial games (from other artists) and change a few things here and there? Don't humans kitbash assets from pixel artists without permission and try to pass it off as their own work?
Using the car analogy, there is a difference in looking-at-a-car-with-4-wheels-and-making-your-own-version-but-still-with-4-wheels vs copying-Henry-Ford's-blueprints-so-you-don't-have-to-understand-how-to-engineer-a-working-car-then-changing-some-features-around-so-no-one-knows-you-stole-the-plans.
Using the soup analogy, preferring homemade soup over factory soup is one thing, but when the reason the factory soup tastes like your grandma's homemade soup is because the factory owner stole your grandma's recipie? That's something else.
Admittedly that is a hyperbolic oversimplification, but the point is, there are different ways to take art and produce some other art. Some of those ways produce new creations that are simply inspired by other art. Other ways produce derivatives, not new art, that is made up of stolen components of someone else's art.
Is that what AI is doing? I don't know for sure. It's still being decided by copyright law.
Yes, looks good. Thank you for fixing them.
All AI assisted assets remain download-disabled. I assumed you already visited the link I provided above in my first comment:
Pages