I pretty much agree with you guys, so I have nothing to add to the primary thrust of your statements, but I do want to make some notes that should be kept in mind:
Its basically like an artist looking up a reference and using that to create something inspired by it.
The counter-argument, and a fairly strong one, unfortunately, based on what can be observed with AI output decay, is that it's more like an artist looking up a reference and using that to derive something from it, not inspired by it. I have some idea how I personally define the difference, but I don't know how the courts will make that distinction.
"As such, AI generated art without much human input cannot be copyrighted."
True, but keep in mind that AI's inability to produce copyrightable output is not the same as AI being incapable of infringing upon prior existing copyrights.
The OGA community is certainly not overlooking AI as a tool, nor rejecting it. Just as you suggest: one of the first things we said about it was:
Submissions will be unaffected by any such removal if the art therein was generated with technologies who's training dataset, in its entirety, is demonstrably openly licensed.
The issue at this point is that no one has been able to build an AI-powered art tool trained with openly licensed content. If you know of one, please share. Even Adobe's Firefly AI, which claimed to be trained this way, was discovered to have been trained on AI generated content that was in turn trained on copyrighted content where use in that way was not permitted by the authors. Which is roughly the AI/Art equivalent of money laundering, not to mention the dumbing-down of AI models by essentially inbreeding them. That isn't to say all these AI's are violating copyright, but the courts themselves are still undecided, and so too must we be.
I pretty much agree with you guys, so I have nothing to add to the primary thrust of your statements, but I do want to make some notes that should be kept in mind:
The counter-argument, and a fairly strong one, unfortunately, based on what can be observed with AI output decay, is that it's more like an artist looking up a reference and using that to derive something from it, not inspired by it. I have some idea how I personally define the difference, but I don't know how the courts will make that distinction.
True, but keep in mind that AI's inability to produce copyrightable output is not the same as AI being incapable of infringing upon prior existing copyrights.
Agreed.
The OGA community is certainly not overlooking AI as a tool, nor rejecting it. Just as you suggest: one of the first things we said about it was:
The issue at this point is that no one has been able to build an AI-powered art tool trained with openly licensed content. If you know of one, please share. Even Adobe's Firefly AI, which claimed to be trained this way, was discovered to have been trained on AI generated content that was in turn trained on copyrighted content where use in that way was not permitted by the authors. Which is roughly the AI/Art equivalent of money laundering, not to mention the dumbing-down of AI models by essentially inbreeding them. That isn't to say all these AI's are violating copyright, but the courts themselves are still undecided, and so too must we be.
Thanks! And, no problem. Thanks for sharing this music.
Not bad.
Just FYI, this is being treated as one larger texture, not 28 small ones.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
"Ikea" is a trademarked brand name. Would you be willing to rename the title and file names to exclude trademarks?EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Full brewery eqipment, even!
Lovely! Thank you JaidynReiman, for all the work you do to enrich LPC assets!
Yes, text files are far better for listing lengthy attribution.
.txt files are allowed. As are .rtf files as long as they're inside the .zip file.
Nice!
Where did the parts of the texture come from, though?
Pages