This looks very good! Could you maybe add an example of a terrain made with this tileset to the previews? I've seen it in the video of your project but a picture here could be nice for other people to quickly see how awesome it really is :)
Yes I amit I don't know in detail how the process works either, I briefly used some online services that worked just by uploading image. If your framwework works as you describe it, there seems to be some creative process here, so I guess this is okay.
> AI is not a non-human trying to create artworks, it is a tool
@MedicineStorm this is a good point, in principle I agree and I don't even think we have to define tool as something similar to photoshop or whatever, it's just that even with a tool there has to be some creative work made by the human with the help of that tool. If you just give AI an image and say "make me something like this" the human has exorted zero creativity, i.e. there is nothing deserving copyright IMHO. My personal view on this is that I'm a bit disappointed as I believed AI could really help expand public domain, but people seem to be too culturally deformed now to think that any image that comes to existence has to be assigned an owner so we say an image that is generated automatically is assigned to ownership to the human who clicked the "generate" button. I don't think this kind of thinking is good for the future of free culture. But that's already offtopic, so I'll leave it at that :)
There is a concept called "sweat of the brow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow) that says author gains copyright solely for his effort on the work, not for creativity, however this principle does not usually apply today even though many try to argue with it -- if it applied we could copyright even simple mathematical formulas etc., i.e. there has to be a non-trivial amount of own artistic expression in a work for it to be copyrightable, effort alone doesn't count. There has also been the famous case of an ape taking photo which was later ruled to be in the public domain, only humans can gain copyright. I'm not intending to bash you or anything, I just feel we are now forming precedents around AI works so I feel the need to comment on these. As I say, I really like the look of these assets, I have myself created a manually upscaled version of the icons you used as input, maybe you could try to use them to see what results they give.
Looks pretty nice. I'm not sure you can claim copyright (CC-BY-SA) on something you've put no creative effort into though, these may be public domain. I'm not sure how complex input prompts to an AI are, but things such as a single sentence aren't copyrightable. Selection of items may be copyrightable, but only as a whole without the individual works being under copyright.
This looks very good! Could you maybe add an example of a terrain made with this tileset to the previews? I've seen it in the video of your project but a picture here could be nice for other people to quickly see how awesome it really is :)
What video game is this for, has it been made public yet? I'd like to see it.
Very nice :)
I hereby appreciate the nice copyright notice, thank you sir :)
Yes I amit I don't know in detail how the process works either, I briefly used some online services that worked just by uploading image. If your framwework works as you describe it, there seems to be some creative process here, so I guess this is okay.
> AI is not a non-human trying to create artworks, it is a tool
@MedicineStorm this is a good point, in principle I agree and I don't even think we have to define tool as something similar to photoshop or whatever, it's just that even with a tool there has to be some creative work made by the human with the help of that tool. If you just give AI an image and say "make me something like this" the human has exorted zero creativity, i.e. there is nothing deserving copyright IMHO. My personal view on this is that I'm a bit disappointed as I believed AI could really help expand public domain, but people seem to be too culturally deformed now to think that any image that comes to existence has to be assigned an owner so we say an image that is generated automatically is assigned to ownership to the human who clicked the "generate" button. I don't think this kind of thinking is good for the future of free culture. But that's already offtopic, so I'll leave it at that :)
There is a concept called "sweat of the brow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow) that says author gains copyright solely for his effort on the work, not for creativity, however this principle does not usually apply today even though many try to argue with it -- if it applied we could copyright even simple mathematical formulas etc., i.e. there has to be a non-trivial amount of own artistic expression in a work for it to be copyrightable, effort alone doesn't count. There has also been the famous case of an ape taking photo which was later ruled to be in the public domain, only humans can gain copyright. I'm not intending to bash you or anything, I just feel we are now forming precedents around AI works so I feel the need to comment on these. As I say, I really like the look of these assets, I have myself created a manually upscaled version of the icons you used as input, maybe you could try to use them to see what results they give.
Looks pretty nice. I'm not sure you can claim copyright (CC-BY-SA) on something you've put no creative effort into though, these may be public domain. I'm not sure how complex input prompts to an AI are, but things such as a single sentence aren't copyrightable. Selection of items may be copyrightable, but only as a whole without the individual works being under copyright.
Looks very nice, thank you :)
Indeed very cool, thank you :)
Pages