...If an A.I.learns using collaborative art and third party arts, everything she creates will be on CC0 even if the source of her learning is not right? since it is a machine, a tool and not a human being. Right? She is a creative tool and not a creator, right?...
In my opinion, no that is not right.
The AI is not creator but a tool, that I agree with... But that doesn't exempt it from the licenses of the assets used to create a derivative. It would basically be the same as downloading a bunch of photos from Google Image (which have various licenses, not CC0), putting them into Photoshop, and creating a new composite image out of them.
The new image could not be licensed CC0 just because Photoshop allows you to license the output how you want. The licenses of all the photos used in the composite would affect the derivative. Just like any image created by the A.I. would be considered derivatives of all the images used to train the A.I.
The only way the output from the A.I. could be licensed CC0 is if all the images used to train the A.I. were also CC0.
I believe this is what neurofire59 is referring to:
The stone portion of 'background 3' in the download file is both smaller in scale and differently textured compared to the stone portion of background-3 in the preview image.
If that is the case, this derivative cannot be licensed CC0. The license(s) will need to be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY. The "Copyright/Attribution Notice" text from that submission should be replicated here for proper attribution.
Please edit the submission and move one of the audio preview files up to the first position. Audio submissions should have audio previews as the first preview so users can hear the preview from the main page.
P.S. tags like "audio", "music", and "asset" should probably be omitted to help searches find this page. Everything in the Music category is an audio music asset. See https://opengameart.org/conent/art-tags
Doing a side-by-side comparison, I did not notice any major differences, only minor ones. What methods did you use to keep this as close to the source of inspiration as possible?
Other than a palette inversion, these seem identical to copyrighted content in most places. This meets the legal burden of substantial similarity. Without knowing more about the methods used to create this, I must mark this as having a potential license issue. I'm hoping that's temporary, though. Please let me know as soon as you are able.
Looks nice!
The resolutions look different. What graphics was the hair based on?
In my opinion, no that is not right.
The AI is not creator but a tool, that I agree with... But that doesn't exempt it from the licenses of the assets used to create a derivative. It would basically be the same as downloading a bunch of photos from Google Image (which have various licenses, not CC0), putting them into Photoshop, and creating a new composite image out of them.
The new image could not be licensed CC0 just because Photoshop allows you to license the output how you want. The licenses of all the photos used in the composite would affect the derivative. Just like any image created by the A.I. would be considered derivatives of all the images used to train the A.I.
The only way the output from the A.I. could be licensed CC0 is if all the images used to train the A.I. were also CC0.
I believe this is what neurofire59 is referring to:
The stone portion of 'background 3' in the download file is both smaller in scale and differently textured compared to the stone portion of background-3 in the preview image.
Oh, cool!
I'm late, but Congratulations FabinhoSC. Medal awarded!
I think I had a few things in mind for this one, but I was worried they weren't really much more than a pixel flip.
If that is the case, this derivative cannot be licensed CC0. The license(s) will need to be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY. The "Copyright/Attribution Notice" text from that submission should be replicated here for proper attribution.
Well, who made the ogre?
Thank you for sharing. :)
Please edit the submission and move one of the audio preview files up to the first position. Audio submissions should have audio previews as the first preview so users can hear the preview from the main page.P.S. tags like "audio", "music", and "asset" should probably be omitted to help searches find this page. Everything in the Music category is an audio music asset. See https://opengameart.org/conent/art-tagsEDIT: fixed.
Doing a side-by-side comparison, I did not notice any major differences, only minor ones. What methods did you use to keep this as close to the source of inspiration as possible?
Other than a palette inversion, these seem identical to copyrighted content in most places. This meets the legal burden of substantial similarity. Without knowing more about the methods used to create this, I must mark this as having a potential license issue. I'm hoping that's temporary, though. Please let me know as soon as you are able.
I attack the gazebo!
Love those cacti et al above, too!
Pages