Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
Using someone's art when they have licensed it openly, but do not wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openly (or at all), but do wish me to use it: I have no opinion to share on this.
Using someone's art when they have not licensed it openlty, and do not wish me to use it: I beleive this is unethical. Namely:
I would rather judge unethical anyone preventing even his own art to be used in any way, I would gladly reuse even proprietary assets against the will of their author
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as someone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
That is relevant if that is what the modern version of Mixamo is using. You're talking about the version from 2013. Unless they've made no changes to it in 12 years, there needs to be some indication about the current modern version of it not using unethical training data. The information I'm seeing says the modern Mixamo uses "Machine Learning". I understand "algorithms" were sometimes referred to as "AI" back in the day, but I've never heard "machine learning" used to refer to standard alorithms. I suspect you're correct, but I would like to have solid information confirming this for the modern Mixamo. Also, is there information indicating it still uses Pinocchio library?
My understanding is it does use machine learning, but you may be right about the method of training. Do you have any more information on that aspect of it?
Was any generative AI tools used in the process of making this?
お送りいただいた翻訳メッセージは分かりやすいです。:)
Loving the updates, bretbernhoft!
Yes. This particular rule is- despite the frequent use the of the word "(un)ethical" above- actually based on practicality. Bart feels it is more beneficial to retain a reputation of good relationships with artists than it is to insist on the legal and ethical allowances, even if that reputation requires us to give some lattitude when an artist is being less than reasonable. I was skeptical of it at first myself, but the observed result is that we have gained more submissions than we have lost via this rule because artists feel more comfortable submitting knowing they don't have to worry about "donor's remorse".
P.S. And please note this is a rule for OGA. No one should feel they need to adhere to such a weird rule in their own endeavors. The licenses are irrevokable. Enjoy the assets accordingly.
My opinions have no bearing on the rules of this site. As everyone in this thread has asserted: we will adhere to the rules regardless of our personal feelings about them. But, while we're sharing our opinions:
My opinion diverges here. Although I am an advocate for free culture, I am also an advocate for consent. I believe using something as personal as someone's lovingly-crafted artwork without consent (furthermore; against consent) can be harmful, both personally and to our broader society. Are we saying that people's artistic expression should cease being something they have any say-so about the moment they finish creating? That seems like it would rob it of all the things that make great artwork: personal importance. intimate meaning. This is not a statement of chastisement or aggreivement, just a counterpoint to contrast various opinions being shared. :)
I agree. Though I'm uncertain of a better phrasing. Perhaps "disrespectful" or "rude" over "unethical". Even that doesn't quite sound right.
Agreed on all points.
That is relevant if that is what the modern version of Mixamo is using. You're talking about the version from 2013. Unless they've made no changes to it in 12 years, there needs to be some indication about the current modern version of it not using unethical training data. The information I'm seeing says the modern Mixamo uses "Machine Learning". I understand "algorithms" were sometimes referred to as "AI" back in the day, but I've never heard "machine learning" used to refer to standard alorithms. I suspect you're correct, but I would like to have solid information confirming this for the modern Mixamo. Also, is there information indicating it still uses Pinocchio library?
My understanding is it does use machine learning, but you may be right about the method of training. Do you have any more information on that aspect of it?
Yes. the animation and rigging tools are AI-based.
Pages