$12256 / $11500
I don't know if this is the right place for posts about doubts and licensing, however ...
I created some conceptual images of 2d characters and also character faces that can be used in an RPG game for example, using a collaborative AI tool, which was trained using third party arts to learn its concepts, and the tool although it uses a code source that is in GPL3.0, it uses in part a resource from Nividia among others that may have different licenses.
It uses resources similar to Picbreeder, many here must already know tools like this. These tools use GANs to create their derivative arts.
My doubt is: If an A.I.learns using collaborative art and third party arts, everything she creates will be on CC0 even if the source of her learning is not right? since it is a machine, a tool and not a human being. Right? She is a creative tool and not a creator, right?
The tool's own website states that the images created with the help of AI are Public Domain (CC0), but the website does not provide a certainty of the origins of the initial images used for AI learning, which I think is the reference and base used by AI to create your images ...
So, if I use art created by an A.I. as a basis to create my own derived arts, how can I license these images and share them here on OGA? On CC0 too? or any other license that OGA accepts? since what I created is derived from the image that AI created, is it partly also my creation? Or in the end, shouldn't I share them here at OGA?
Could anyone who understands these licenses on collaborative derived arts and arts made by A.I.would answer me?
(Below are some conceptual arts that I made using this type of tool? I just configured the reference options and she created them as a result ... So it looks like something procedural too.)
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
In my opinion, no that is not right.
The AI is not creator but a tool, that I agree with... But that doesn't exempt it from the licenses of the assets used to create a derivative. It would basically be the same as downloading a bunch of photos from Google Image (which have various licenses, not CC0), putting them into Photoshop, and creating a new composite image out of them.
The new image could not be licensed CC0 just because Photoshop allows you to license the output how you want. The licenses of all the photos used in the composite would affect the derivative. Just like any image created by the A.I. would be considered derivatives of all the images used to train the A.I.
The only way the output from the A.I. could be licensed CC0 is if all the images used to train the A.I. were also CC0.
--Medicine StormThis question is extremely interesting. Not trolling; wouldn't any piece of art created by a human being be a derivative of all the things he or she had ever seen, and would that not influence the license of their output?
Would it make any sense to attribute ai-derived works to the algorithm and not the image training and or content?
Whole thing is murky but it gets the wheels spinning...
That gets into the difference between inspiration and derivation. All art created by humans is inspired by their experiences, but it is not always "derived" from the experiences.
Is the AI using the training art to derive new art or is the AI only inspired by the training material? From my knowledge of specialized artificial intelligence, it is the former. It will never produce a work that deviates from the bounds of the source training material, which would be possible if it were truly inspiration.
--Medicine Storm@MedicineStorm, Thanks for your answer.
So I believe that although AI tools like these create some interesting traits, make it easier and speed up creative work, they will only serve to create free art if the AI learning is done using work on CC0.
So it would not be safe to share art from this specific tool in OGA, even if I modify the art afterwards using Gimp for example, because in this specific case, I couldn't put it on CC0 with 100% certainty.
I'm a little disappointed, but I understand all of that. According to the norm; "for a derived art to be free on CC0, the original file used must also be CC0". Seems fair. A creative A.I. tool does not change anything in this situation.
I'm afraid so. Though, as MNDV said, it makes for a fascinating thought experiment.
--Medicine Storm