Reply to MedicineStorm If you don't admit to using someone assts as a base there is no evidance for lawsuit. Guy openly said he COPYED and edited sprites to be unrecognizable
But here my problem with copyright and here is few example of how gray area copyright and abuse can reach.
Some artist created music and lyrics for a song, but they were later sued—not over the song as a whole, but specifically over the melody. In that case, the artist’s new work was found to contain a sequence of instrumental tones (the “melody”) that was too similar to a copyrighted one. The court ruled against him, stating that even if he had never consciously heard the original, he had still unconsciously copied it. So software and laywer used to mark every "melody" (combination of tunes) per instrument to be public common so music artists can evade this "copyright" absurd lawsuits, and also there is "copyrighted combination of sounds" to this day that you can't use even if its finite number of combinations of tones for me this is just mind boggling.
This example highlights a broader issue with copyright law: it isn’t just about copying literal elements. Often, copyright is used as a tool to block others from creating similar or even identical items—even when these items are common building blocks in creative work.
Consider everyday objects like coffee cups, chairs, or even actions such as walking and talking. There are countless models or representations of these “general assets” that we use daily, and many of them are created, used, and then discarded without fanfare. Yet, if two people were to, say, paint a sword from the same angle, could that be considered copyright infringement? In theory, if every similar representation is treated as infringement, creators would be forced to reinvent the wheel every time they design something. This is especially problematic in game development, where most games rely on creating for each game new assets to look uniqe or use exising recycle assets in new games. After all, how many soccer balls does one need to create a convincing game of soccer? How many depictions of guns, bazookas, or rockets are truly necessary for a shooter game? Expecting every asset to be entirely unique not only stifles creativity—it may also lead to endless litigation as everyone could potentially sue each other, claiming “they copied me.”
Furthermore, if every new asset must be completely original, eventually all assets will start to look alike. Minor variations—like different colors or patterns—can only go so far before the underlying design becomes nearly similar. In such a scenario, the law might end up punishing even those who use common visual language to represent everyday objects or actions, making it increasingly difficult for creators to innovate without risking infringement claims.
Take, for example, the process of rotating a character image. Rotating from a single image is essentially about predicting where each next pixel should go in that rotation. If we argue that using this tool is not copyright protected, then why should manual drawing be any different? What if someone uses the same tool repeatedly to refine or “fix” its own output? Whether AI is involved or not—even if it only speeds up the process—the fundamental question remains: how much human input is required for a work to be considered truly original and eligible for copyright protection?
Adding to the complexity(as of 2025 part 2 of copyrgiht office) , The Office affirms that existing copyright principles are flexible enough to apply to new technologies, as they have with previous innovations. According to this view, the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only when a human author contributes sufficient expressive elements. This might include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible within the AI output or where creative arrangements or modifications have been made—but merely providing prompts isn’t enough. This raises a significant challenge: exactly how much human editing is required? For instance, could recoloring a single pixel be enough to claim protection? This ambiguity creates a minefield, potentially allowing someone to generate an asset with AI and then perform minimal tweaks to assert copyright ownership, thereby opening the door to endless legal disputes over what constitutes a meaningful creative contribution.
Beyond these examples, there’s also the issue of patent lawsuits in the gaming industry. Consider the case between Pocketpair and Nintendo: Pocketpair had been developing a game for several years and released it, only for Nintendo to file a patent claim on a feature that both companies used. Notably, Nintendo’s claim emerged only after the game’s release—targeting a feature that had been present long before their patent filing. Such retroactive patent claims seem absurd, as they can be used to sue even those games that existed before the patent was enforced. Cases like these illustrate how copyright and patent laws can be manipulated by powerful companies to control creativity and competition rather than to foster genuine innovation.Ultimately, the current legal framework often follows the logic of “if there is no evidence of a crime, then no crime was committed.” In the realm of creative works, however, proving copyright infringement can become a minefield—one where legal might often determines the outcome rather than objective standards of originality. This environment not only suppresses creativity but also enables established entities to control what can be created, effectively stifling competition and innovation. What we really need is a system where “general assets”—the foundational building blocks of creative work—are recognized as part of our sharedcultural vocabulary and made freely available for everyone’s use.
What i want to say that its minefield to copyright.
Currently im training lora to create tileset and so far its going good, I was using this as ispiration. But decided to dich entire tileset cuz it was more 3D-ish than flat 2D.
I did draw my own inital tiles and used tilesetter to create all variations of tiles, i decided to make first minimalistic tilest as v1. In version v2 i took all tiles that are repeating and set em as single instance of it, you could rotate those and saving some space for future. For V3 what i wanna create is possible 1 click entire tileset with repaeting tiles that has variations like: Cracks, flowers, snow, dirt, vines etc, depending on what type of tiles it is. Currently building "blueprint"
So based on what i did learn is that you can create animation generator training your own lora/finetuned model, but you need to create same animation in same format with same heights and width, otherwise lora/model won't know what is where, it will get confused and starts to throw up and make something that is NOT a spritesheet. To A.I. to learn something you feed it with a objects of diffrent rotations, colors, like apple, but is it fully red?, is it rotten?, has holes?, etc. Each of states has to be seperate as dataset (text file that has words like "apple worm, apple, red, organic" etc. So whatever you want to make him learn you can, it requres some nice GPU and more time than anything.
If you want to generate animations with AI you can. You would probably spend 90% of time just in setup dataset before training and about 10% try and error. But there is always smart way. I use trigger words and lora (smaller in size), and if i can train my own model hopefully one day. For example, to create data set you need to first figure out what you want, Enitre set? What comes in that tileset, walking? Running? Jumping? Slashing? Dying? Revivng? Casting Spells,....list can be pretty big. If you want to make such spritesheet it would be really big and kinda not possible as of right now.
You can do spritesheet of 1536x1536 as highest resolution as base. Im using 1024px SDXL model as base for lora.
So now you have canvas to work with, pick up to some space that your PC can generate and stick with that for beggining. To Setup animation, lets use walking as example. In 1024 x 1024 px we can put somewhat 128 x 256, Now remove 16 for spacing, and you have 112x 496 pixels to work for 1 frame. Since we have limited space you can have 64 frames but all frames dose not have to be used. Or you can generate 8 animations for each row and 8 collums for each animation or 4 animations and more frames. You get point. Now lets say you created your first "blueprint". There is now more ways to create rest of variations. There is hard and time consuming, and dirty and easy but maybe less quality.
Hard way First one is create all variations of animations as blueprints like : walking, dying, springing, jumping...whatever you wish (it takes time). And use that as transparent to draw other characters in similar animations, so that you can have 10-15 datasets of diffrenct characters in those animations.
Easy way Use created bluepring and use A.I. to generate similar animations with diffrent characters, and use those genearted as dataset. Use controlnet for pose, canny for cohirance. *Canny will try to draw similar guy*, recommend to look at google that you out of controlnets. Depth can be good to see what is in front and what is in back...usefull for legs/arms.
Note That once creating "blueprint" you can create other effects, like creating naked dude/girl (some cloth) and draw over with animation as overlay in back a sword swing. Or Diffrent shoes, armor etc, that can match with that animations. This way you have by having "blueprint" you quickly add/remove things you need.
Creating other assets with A.I. is not using prompts only but using your imagation. I'm using Krita with AI, i do have prompt but hes imaging that i want i just draw shape of it, again depending on "noise" it can generate existing or something compleatly new. Mostly you want to be really going into detalies about your characters. Where is legs, arms, what is where, is hair growing out of hat? Are ears on sides out hat or they are merged. A.I. as of right now won't create even with perfect dataset out of box correctt sprite or picture, you have to correct it, eather drawing yourself or prompting inpainting....... You will notice that Creating AI is more about creating dataset that training any lora/model. Training is more like test to see if it works. To see if what you created pleases you, is it flawless? That is debetable.
Chiptunes are my favorite!
Reply to MedicineStorm
If you don't admit to using someone assts as a base there is no evidance for lawsuit. Guy openly said he COPYED and edited sprites to be unrecognizable
But here my problem with copyright and here is few example of how gray area copyright and abuse can reach.
Some artist created music and lyrics for a song, but they were later sued—not over the song as a whole, but specifically over the melody. In that case, the artist’s new work was found to contain a sequence of instrumental tones (the “melody”) that was too similar to a copyrighted one. The court ruled against him, stating that even if he had never consciously heard the original, he had still unconsciously copied it. So software and laywer used to mark every "melody" (combination of tunes) per instrument to be public common so music artists can evade this "copyright" absurd lawsuits, and also there is "copyrighted combination of sounds" to this day that you can't use even if its finite number of combinations of tones for me this is just mind boggling.
This example highlights a broader issue with copyright law: it isn’t just about copying literal elements. Often, copyright is used as a tool to block others from creating similar or even identical items—even when these items are common building blocks in creative work.
Consider everyday objects like coffee cups, chairs, or even actions such as walking and talking. There are countless models or representations of these “general assets” that we use daily, and many of them are created, used, and then discarded without fanfare. Yet, if two people were to, say, paint a sword from the same angle, could that be considered copyright infringement? In theory, if every similar representation is treated as infringement, creators would be forced to reinvent the wheel every time they design something. This is especially problematic in game development, where most games rely on creating for each game new assets to look uniqe or use exising recycle assets in new games. After all, how many soccer balls does one need to create a convincing game of soccer? How many depictions of guns, bazookas, or rockets are truly necessary for a shooter game? Expecting every asset to be entirely unique not only stifles creativity—it may also lead to endless litigation as everyone could potentially sue each other, claiming “they copied me.”
Furthermore, if every new asset must be completely original, eventually all assets will start to look alike. Minor variations—like different colors or patterns—can only go so far before the underlying design becomes nearly similar. In such a scenario, the law might end up punishing even those who use common visual language to represent everyday objects or actions, making it increasingly difficult for creators to innovate without risking infringement claims.
Take, for example, the process of rotating a character image. Rotating from a single image is essentially about predicting where each next pixel should go in that rotation. If we argue that using this tool is not copyright protected, then why should manual drawing be any different? What if someone uses the same tool repeatedly to refine or “fix” its own output? Whether AI is involved or not—even if it only speeds up the process—the fundamental question remains: how much human input is required for a work to be considered truly original and eligible for copyright protection?
Adding to the complexity(as of 2025 part 2 of copyrgiht office) , The Office affirms that existing copyright principles are flexible enough to apply to new technologies, as they have with previous innovations. According to this view, the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only when a human author contributes sufficient expressive elements. This might include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible within the AI output or where creative arrangements or modifications have been made—but merely providing prompts isn’t enough. This raises a significant challenge: exactly how much human editing is required? For instance, could recoloring a single pixel be enough to claim protection? This ambiguity creates a minefield, potentially allowing someone to generate an asset with AI and then perform minimal tweaks to assert copyright ownership, thereby opening the door to endless legal disputes over what constitutes a meaningful creative contribution.
Beyond these examples, there’s also the issue of patent lawsuits in the gaming industry. Consider the case between Pocketpair and Nintendo: Pocketpair had been developing a game for several years and released it, only for Nintendo to file a patent claim on a feature that both companies used. Notably, Nintendo’s claim emerged only after the game’s release—targeting a feature that had been present long before their patent filing. Such retroactive patent claims seem absurd, as they can be used to sue even those games that existed before the patent was enforced. Cases like these illustrate how copyright and patent laws can be manipulated by powerful companies to control creativity and competition rather than to foster genuine innovation.Ultimately, the current legal framework often follows the logic of “if there is no evidence of a crime, then no crime was committed.” In the realm of creative works, however, proving copyright infringement can become a minefield—one where legal might often determines the outcome rather than objective standards of originality. This environment not only suppresses creativity but also enables established entities to control what can be created, effectively stifling competition and innovation. What we really need is a system where “general assets”—the foundational building blocks of creative work—are recognized as part of our sharedcultural vocabulary and made freely available for everyone’s use.
What i want to say that its minefield to copyright.
Currently im training lora to create tileset and so far its going good, I was using this as ispiration. But decided to dich entire tileset cuz it was more 3D-ish than flat 2D.
I did draw my own inital tiles and used tilesetter to create all variations of tiles, i decided to make first minimalistic tilest as v1. In version v2 i took all tiles that are repeating and set em as single instance of it, you could rotate those and saving some space for future.
For V3 what i wanna create is possible 1 click entire tileset with repaeting tiles that has variations like: Cracks, flowers, snow, dirt, vines etc, depending on what type of tiles it is. Currently building "blueprint"
So based on what i did learn is that you can create animation generator training your own lora/finetuned model, but you need to create same animation in same format with same heights and width, otherwise lora/model won't know what is where, it will get confused and starts to throw up and make something that is NOT a spritesheet.
To A.I. to learn something you feed it with a objects of diffrent rotations, colors, like apple, but is it fully red?, is it rotten?, has holes?, etc. Each of states has to be seperate as dataset (text file that has words like "apple worm, apple, red, organic" etc. So whatever you want to make him learn you can, it requres some nice GPU and more time than anything.
If you want to generate animations with AI you can. You would probably spend 90% of time just in setup dataset before training and about 10% try and error. But there is always smart way.
I use trigger words and lora (smaller in size), and if i can train my own model hopefully one day.
For example, to create data set you need to first figure out what you want, Enitre set? What comes in that tileset, walking? Running? Jumping? Slashing? Dying? Revivng? Casting Spells,....list can be pretty big. If you want to make such spritesheet it would be really big and kinda not possible as of right now.
You can do spritesheet of 1536x1536 as highest resolution as base. Im using 1024px SDXL model as base for lora.
So now you have canvas to work with, pick up to some space that your PC can generate and stick with that for beggining. To Setup animation, lets use walking as example. In 1024 x 1024 px we can put somewhat 128 x 256, Now remove 16 for spacing, and you have 112x 496 pixels to work for 1 frame. Since we have limited space you can have 64 frames but all frames dose not have to be used. Or you can generate 8 animations for each row and 8 collums for each animation or 4 animations and more frames. You get point.
Now lets say you created your first "blueprint". There is now more ways to create rest of variations. There is hard and time consuming, and dirty and easy but maybe less quality.
Hard way
First one is create all variations of animations as blueprints like : walking, dying, springing, jumping...whatever you wish (it takes time). And use that as transparent to draw other characters in similar animations, so that you can have 10-15 datasets of diffrenct characters in those animations.
Easy way
Use created bluepring and use A.I. to generate similar animations with diffrent characters, and use those genearted as dataset. Use controlnet for pose, canny for cohirance. *Canny will try to draw similar guy*, recommend to look at google that you out of controlnets. Depth can be good to see what is in front and what is in back...usefull for legs/arms.
Note
That once creating "blueprint" you can create other effects, like creating naked dude/girl (some cloth) and draw over with animation as overlay in back a sword swing. Or Diffrent shoes, armor etc, that can match with that animations. This way you have by having "blueprint" you quickly add/remove things you need.
Creating other assets with A.I. is not using prompts only but using your imagation. I'm using Krita with AI, i do have prompt but hes imaging that i want i just draw shape of it, again depending on "noise" it can generate existing or something compleatly new. Mostly you want to be really going into detalies about your characters. Where is legs, arms, what is where, is hair growing out of hat? Are ears on sides out hat or they are merged. A.I. as of right now won't create even with perfect dataset out of box correctt sprite or picture, you have to correct it, eather drawing yourself or prompting inpainting.......
You will notice that Creating AI is more about creating dataset that training any lora/model. Training is more like test to see if it works. To see if what you created pleases you, is it flawless? That is debetable.
How can i add it to Artificial Intelligence Assisted Artwork collection? Aka mark my own as it??