$12256 / $11500
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post about questions and licensing, but...
I created some concept images of 2D characters that could be used in a game. But using a collaborative AI tool, which was trained using third-party art to learn its concepts.
I imagine many people are already familiar with tools like this.
My question 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?
And if the tool's own website states that the images created with the help of the AI are Public Domain (CC0), but the website does not provide any certainty about the origins of the initial images used for the AI's learning, which I think are the reference and the basis used by the AI to create its images...
So, if I use art created by an AI as a basis to create my own derivative art, how can I license these images and share them here on the OGA? Under CC0 as well? Or any other license that the OGA accepts? Since what I created is derived from the image that the AI created, is it also partially my creation? Or in the end, should I not share them here on the OGA?
Could someone who understands these licenses about collaborative derivative art and AI-made art please answer me?
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 afraid so. Though, as MNDV said, it makes for a fascinating thought experiment.
--Medicine Stormactually it would not be safe to share anything no matter if A.I. or not A.I. generated because there is no way you can prove how it was generated.
There are instances of stable diffusion in which you can choose what are so called "checkpoints". According to what I found on internet this is the definition of checkpoints: "Checkpoints and models are fundamental concepts in machine learning that are related but distinct... A checkpoint is a snapshot during the training that captures the state of a model at a specific stage in the training process. In other words, checkpoints are a type of AI models. Think of checkpoints as save points in a video game, allowing you to capture the state of your model at specific intervals during training. When you use a checkpoint, you are able to generate images using the concepts and knowledge it has learnt up to the checkpoint."
There are thousands of those checkpoints you can find on the internet and choose to achieve and accomplish specific requirements and results.
So if I understand right, you can choose models that are trained exclusively on cc0 materials and also make checkpoints specific to any type of realism or art type you want, but the question specific to licensing is: how do you prove you used the right model and checkpoint to license any A.I. generated art as cc0?
The answer to this question is to me clear: you can't, and actually you can not prove either if a so called "non A.I. generated" assets was really made by a human. You can try to figure out and get close to the real source of the assets based on some patterns, but you can not assure anything. You can even make the A.i. draw like an amateur artist and make the A.I. make the same mistakes a human would make and make art with the A.I. indistinguishable from real human art if you train it with the right set of assets (for instance by feeding it with amateur assets).