No response from submitter. Pending any new information on the license and attribution, I will have to remove this submission soon.
EDIT: submitter removed CC-BY-SA/GPL components. A monocle overlay to the original Ogre; good solution, but you guys actually have to let me know when something changes. It's a good thing I double-checked the download file before deleting this.
That gets into the difference between inspiration and derivation. All art created by humans is inspired by their experiences, but it is not always "derived" from the experiences.
Is the AI using the training art to derive new art or is the AI only inspired by the training material? From my knowledge of specialized artificial intelligence, it is the former. It will never produce a work that deviates from the bounds of the source training material, which would be possible if it were truly inspiration.
...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.
No response from submitter. Pending any new information on the license and attribution, I will have to remove this submission soon.EDIT: submitter removed CC-BY-SA/GPL components. A monocle overlay to the original Ogre; good solution, but you guys actually have to let me know when something changes. It's a good thing I double-checked the download file before deleting this.
I'm afraid so. Though, as MNDV said, it makes for a fascinating thought experiment.
That gets into the difference between inspiration and derivation. All art created by humans is inspired by their experiences, but it is not always "derived" from the experiences.
Is the AI using the training art to derive new art or is the AI only inspired by the training material? From my knowledge of specialized artificial intelligence, it is the former. It will never produce a work that deviates from the bounds of the source training material, which would be possible if it were truly inspiration.
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?
Pages