There is probably another song on the site named "adventure" and the preview cached the tune. I'll bet if you rename the preview file to something more unique it will fix it.
Maybe they're safe. They're certainly more likely to be safe, but I can't agree they are difinitively safe enough to create assets and share them on OGA just yet. I hope that will be the case soon.
That revisits a concern I had from earlier in the thread:
"It would only infringe on the copyright if the asset is too similar to the original asset."
Be careful with this. Similarity is not the reason something is infringing copyright. It is just the most common tool in determining if copying took place. Copying can still take place, and therefore be copyright infringement, even when the result of the copying looks very dissimilar from the original. It's just usually very hard to prove copying took place when the original and the new work look dissimilar.
I have seen someone get DMCA'd (and lost) because he used Chrono Trigger character sprites as a basis for his characters. He morphed the sprites multiple tiimes, tweaking them over a long period. Eventually, the characters were not recognizable as coming from Chrono Trigger at all. He appealed the DMCA saying there was no similarity betwen them and therefore it was not copying. The lawyers cited his dev-log, where he chronicled the entire process of copying Chrono Trigger assets and adjusting them until they were unrecognizable compared to the original assets. It was proof enough that copying did occur, despite a lack of similarity. Because his assets would not have existed without first coming from copyrighted content, they were deemed infringing.
If the end work is so dissimilar from what you're using as a base that you don't really even recognize the original base at all; then you should not use the original base at all.
If you still want to use the original base because it's easier and serves as a helpful guide; then you are benefitting from the effort of another artist without their consent: possible infringement.
On the contrary, this is distinct from using other art as inspiration. If you look at Chrono Trigger sprites, and that gives you some good ideas, then you stop looking at the copyrighted sprites, then begin to create your own sprites in roughly the same shape and animation style based on your own learned skills plus what you recall from the inspiring source, but are not actually repeatedly referencing, or overlaying, or tracing, or clipping any parts of the original, that is not infringement. It's inspiration. As stated above, this is what all artists do all the time. I'm not sure it's what AI's do at all, though. And that's the crux of the uncertainty.
Looking forward to when/if there is a fully openly-trained model some day. That being said, I do feel there is a distinction between generative AI and transformative AI. the asset rotation tool is not generating artwork nor adding features to the artwork that weren't in the original (which would mean the features were being added from the learned dataset) but are only transforming the existing art based on what the AI observed from other artwork. That seems more like inspiration or skills-learning rather than derivation from other works. Perhaps that is a specious distinction, I don't know. I'll have to dig into that more.
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.
There is probably another song on the site named "adventure" and the preview cached the tune. I'll bet if you rename the preview file to something more unique it will fix it.
Maybe they're safe. They're certainly more likely to be safe, but I can't agree they are difinitively safe enough to create assets and share them on OGA just yet. I hope that will be the case soon.
That revisits a concern I had from earlier in the thread:
Be careful with this. Similarity is not the reason something is infringing copyright. It is just the most common tool in determining if copying took place. Copying can still take place, and therefore be copyright infringement, even when the result of the copying looks very dissimilar from the original. It's just usually very hard to prove copying took place when the original and the new work look dissimilar.
I have seen someone get DMCA'd (and lost) because he used Chrono Trigger character sprites as a basis for his characters. He morphed the sprites multiple tiimes, tweaking them over a long period. Eventually, the characters were not recognizable as coming from Chrono Trigger at all. He appealed the DMCA saying there was no similarity betwen them and therefore it was not copying. The lawyers cited his dev-log, where he chronicled the entire process of copying Chrono Trigger assets and adjusting them until they were unrecognizable compared to the original assets. It was proof enough that copying did occur, despite a lack of similarity. Because his assets would not have existed without first coming from copyrighted content, they were deemed infringing.
On the contrary, this is distinct from using other art as inspiration. If you look at Chrono Trigger sprites, and that gives you some good ideas, then you stop looking at the copyrighted sprites, then begin to create your own sprites in roughly the same shape and animation style based on your own learned skills plus what you recall from the inspiring source, but are not actually repeatedly referencing, or overlaying, or tracing, or clipping any parts of the original, that is not infringement. It's inspiration. As stated above, this is what all artists do all the time. I'm not sure it's what AI's do at all, though. And that's the crux of the uncertainty.
Looking forward to when/if there is a fully openly-trained model some day. That being said, I do feel there is a distinction between generative AI and transformative AI. the asset rotation tool is not generating artwork nor adding features to the artwork that weren't in the original (which would mean the features were being added from the learned dataset) but are only transforming the existing art based on what the AI observed from other artwork. That seems more like inspiration or skills-learning rather than derivation from other works. Perhaps that is a specious distinction, I don't know. I'll have to dig into that more.
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!
Pages