If you require credit, then you should probably use OGA-BY or CC-BY instead of CC0. Otherwise you should indicate that credit is appreciated, but not required.
@billknye: These have not been attributed correctly. Linking to the original is not sufficient attribution. The author's name and any changes, if any, must also be indicated. Please mimic caeles's attribution or specify which artist(s) created the original tiles these were derived from:
"For detailed copyright information see the file COPYRIGHT in the archive. The authors are Cem Kalyoncu, Connor Sherson, Daniel Eddeland, Johann Charlot, Jonas Klinger, Juan Rodriguez, Lanea Zimmerman, Mark Weyer, and Skyler Robert Colladay."
The "gray area" is not about which AI art is allowed and which AI art is not, its about when (if ever) AI art is allowed in general. Currently, the answer is "not yet" because the courts have yet to make a firm determination on how GANs may infringe upon copyright or not. (AI art cannot be copyrighted, but it may still infringe upon existing copyrights)
If the GAN is demonstrably trained on exclusively openly licensed content, then there is no issue. However, StableDiffusion, MidJourney, et al have NOT trained on openly licensed content, so their infringement status is uncertain.
There are a few GANs out there trained purely on openly licensed (or owned) content, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have terms of use that are incompatible with open licenses like the ones required on OGA.
In this case, the infomation you indicated above appears to be the worst of both: the GAN was trained on questionable content- making it's infringement status uncertain- AND the terms of use conflict with CC-BY 3.0 (and all other licenses accepted on OGA); CC-BY doesn't forbid people who are NOT a single dev team of less than 10 people from using the assets, but the terms of use here do. Additionally, any stipulation that "requires prior authorization" is incompatible, because none of the licenses here can enforce requesting separate authorization. The stipulation in this case is regarding revenue, which essentially makes this a Non-Commercial license.
"free to use with proper credit but only if you're < 10 devs and no commercial use" ≠ CC-BY 3.0
TL;DR: Worry not! You haven't broken any rules. It isn't that it's illegal here. The problem is, it might get devs in trouble later if they use it. Until we know for sure they're safe to use, we have to disable downloads of such assets. Sorry for the trouble and let me know if you have any questions.
See also https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/uploading-other-authors-works
Nice. Is devolution a series of games? I'm curious to know where these are from.
I see; the preview image doesn't match the assets. Would you be willing to create new preview images?
Are the textures used from CC0 sources?
If you require credit, then you should probably use OGA-BY or CC-BY instead of CC0. Otherwise you should indicate that credit is appreciated, but not required.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
@billknye: These have not been attributed correctly. Linking to the original is not sufficient attribution. The author's name and any changes, if any, must also be indicated. Please mimic caeles's attribution or specify which artist(s) created the original tiles these were derived from:EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Thanks for the extra attribution! that will certainly help when we assess AI submissions! :)
See https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork
The "gray area" is not about which AI art is allowed and which AI art is not, its about when (if ever) AI art is allowed in general. Currently, the answer is "not yet" because the courts have yet to make a firm determination on how GANs may infringe upon copyright or not. (AI art cannot be copyrighted, but it may still infringe upon existing copyrights)
If the GAN is demonstrably trained on exclusively openly licensed content, then there is no issue. However, StableDiffusion, MidJourney, et al have NOT trained on openly licensed content, so their infringement status is uncertain.
There are a few GANs out there trained purely on openly licensed (or owned) content, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have terms of use that are incompatible with open licenses like the ones required on OGA.
In this case, the infomation you indicated above appears to be the worst of both: the GAN was trained on questionable content- making it's infringement status uncertain- AND the terms of use conflict with CC-BY 3.0 (and all other licenses accepted on OGA); CC-BY doesn't forbid people who are NOT a single dev team of less than 10 people from using the assets, but the terms of use here do. Additionally, any stipulation that "requires prior authorization" is incompatible, because none of the licenses here can enforce requesting separate authorization. The stipulation in this case is regarding revenue, which essentially makes this a Non-Commercial license.
"free to use with proper credit but only if you're < 10 devs and no commercial use" ≠
CC-BY 3.0TL;DR: Worry not! You haven't broken any rules. It isn't that it's illegal here. The problem is, it might get devs in trouble later if they use it. Until we know for sure they're safe to use, we have to disable downloads of such assets. Sorry for the trouble and let me know if you have any questions.
Colorful.
What technology was used to create these?
I like the addition of the heart and dice, but... why is it only a preview and not downloadable?
Remarkable! My mistake; they look exactly like 3D polygonal flowers. How do you achieve that effect with just 2D painting? They're lovely.
Pages