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
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
Yet, if two people were to, say, paint a sword from the same angle, could that be considered copyright infringement?
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
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.”
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
If we argue that using this tool is not copyright protected...
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
the fundamental question remains: how much human input is required for a work to be considered truly original and eligible for copyright protection? ... but merely providing prompts isn’t enough. This raises a significant challenge: exactly how much human editing is required?
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
could recoloring a single pixel be enough to claim protection?
No.
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.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Consider the case between Pocketpair and Nintendo ... 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.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
That is a good point. (Not the "Fair-use" bit. That's irrelevant here. OGA doesn't accept Fair-use content, nor forbid Fair-use application of any of our assets.) The most ethical way to train AI is using openly licensed content. We don't have any closed licenses on OGA. It seems somewhat contradictory to say "Anyone can use this for whatever they want. Ultimate freedom. But not you, AI. I don't like you specifically. No freedom for you."
In that case, if the question is "What features of a license would forbid AI?", the answer is "The same feature that prevents it from being accepted on OGA."
Sorry, Skydancer. I'm confident there is a license that accomplishes* what you want (or if it doesn't already exist, there someone out there crafting it right now) but such a license will probably never be added to the list of licenses on OGA. But, as hecko mentions, all of the -BY licenses require attribution. If the courts decide- or if a particular AI model is crafted in such a way- that the training of AI is not simply Fair-Use, then the model must provide appropriate attribution to every -BY licensed asset used. If they do not, they are violating the license. I reiterate that hinges on the model training being Fair-Use or not. That's either a model-specific detail or a court-has-yet-to-weigh-in detail. *(I have no idea how the terms of such a license would be enforced. If an AI model admitted to using your works, you could enforce it, but as glitchart pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to prove a breach of license otherwise.)
"...put up a tiny barrier that would discourage most scrapers,..."
That is an interesting approach. Artists could use data-poisoning techniques, so long as it didn't interfere with the usefulness of the asset otherwise.
"...e.g. uploading as a .zip file (perhaps with a simple password)."
This I must recommend against. Password-protecting an archive, uploading it to OGA, and sharing the password in the description would have limited success in hindering scrapers, but massive hinderance for legitimate users. Such files will be removed from OGA.
Unless the concern is individuals copying the style, which... hmm, I'm not sure if any sequence of words would discourage them.
Even if there were, it wouldn't be a valid license; artistic style is explicitly NOT copyrightable.
Oh, that's very interesting. No mention of number of frames, (intentionally, I assume) so the frame count can vary as required; the width of the image will simply be wider if more frames are needed. I can't speak to other dev's needs, but I am a Dev, not an Artist, and I can say for me personally those 5 convention rules would make it quite easy for me to dynamically load animations, without the need for custom sprite-specific code handling.
If frame[i].X + frame[i].width > spritesheet.width Or frame[i].isAllTransparentPixels { set LastFrame = i - 1 }
I also agree with size optimization needs being a developer task, not an artist task. sprite-packing is highly engine-specific, so trying to pre-empt that step is more likely to increase work for the developer.
True. That's a problem for all conventions we've discussed so far. What about a JSON file included with each monster's spritesheet(s)? The JSON file would indicate what animations are supported, regardless of composite- (single file) or separate- (multiple file) animation spritesheet conventions. If separate data files give you the ick, how else would a game engine dynamically recognize the presence or absence of an animation? And would that be less cumbersome?
I think I understand now. In which case, it seems like any animation that could possibly be optional should be a separate file. However, I can imagine monsters where even the "move" animations are optional: ie a poison spine shooting killer plant. Doesn't move, but has a ranged attack. This is a fringe example, admittedly, but it does make me wonder: what animations, if any, should be together in a single file, then?
Possibly, yes. Admitting to copying is one form of evidence. Substantial similarity is another. There are more than 2 ways to demonstrate evidence of infringement in a copyright case, though. I'm not certain what you're trying to point out here. My point was "Similarity does not always equal copyright infringement. Lack of similarity does not always equal copyright safe."
No. The scenarios you have outlined are not fringe cases. If the only relationship between the two assets is the perspective, then it is not copyright infringement. One artist might still sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
Indeed. Good thing I don't expect every asset to be entirely unique. Is there someone here who does?
Who is "we"? I am not arguing that using this tool renders the output unprotectable.
Agreed. The courts do have some benchmarks for such de minimus effort required to constitute something being a separate work, but those benchmarks are spread across the corpus of tort law, so it is often difficult to distill an answer down to a blurb, and certainly not one that can be applied in genereal.
No.
It is not so precarious as you may be assuming. De minimus and "substantial similarity" may be nebulous but they are hardly unknown legal thresholds. A simple hue shift does not reach the threshold of new works. Rearranging assets into a spritesheet or tileset does not reach the threshold. Performing "minimal tweaks" are- by admission- minimal, and therefore do not reach the threshold.
Again, One company might sue the other one, but it doesn't mean they'll win. Granted, Nintendo's titanic status may give them unfair leverage, and the winner of that suit may not be the one who should win, unfortunately. However, I'm not sure how this applies here? Are you saying "Well, there are big powerful bullies in the world so let's forget IP law. If they can get away with it, then so shall we!"? I mean, I actually agree with social dissent in order to enact change, but that is an entirely different conversation. Please do not protest injustices of IP law by posting legally questionable content on OGA. We are not a corporate giant. Setting your friends ablaze does not halt your enemies.
That is a good point. (Not the "Fair-use" bit. That's irrelevant here. OGA doesn't accept Fair-use content, nor forbid Fair-use application of any of our assets.) The most ethical way to train AI is using openly licensed content. We don't have any closed licenses on OGA. It seems somewhat contradictory to say "Anyone can use this for whatever they want. Ultimate freedom. But not you, AI. I don't like you specifically. No freedom for you."
In that case, if the question is "What features of a license would forbid AI?", the answer is "The same feature that prevents it from being accepted on OGA."
Sorry, Skydancer. I'm confident there is a license that accomplishes* what you want (or if it doesn't already exist, there someone out there crafting it right now) but such a license will probably never be added to the list of licenses on OGA. But, as hecko mentions, all of the -BY licenses require attribution. If the courts decide- or if a particular AI model is crafted in such a way- that the training of AI is not simply Fair-Use, then the model must provide appropriate attribution to every -BY licensed asset used. If they do not, they are violating the license. I reiterate that hinges on the model training being Fair-Use or not. That's either a model-specific detail or a court-has-yet-to-weigh-in detail.
*(I have no idea how the terms of such a license would be enforced. If an AI model admitted to using your works, you could enforce it, but as glitchart pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to prove a breach of license otherwise.)
That is an interesting approach. Artists could use data-poisoning techniques, so long as it didn't interfere with the usefulness of the asset otherwise.
This I must recommend against. Password-protecting an archive, uploading it to OGA, and sharing the password in the description would have limited success in hindering scrapers, but massive hinderance for legitimate users. Such files will be removed from OGA.
Even if there were, it wouldn't be a valid license; artistic style is explicitly NOT copyrightable.
I'm not saying the artists will "win" the lawsuit, just that it isn't pointless to seek legal recourse (such as licensing) for such things.
I'm sorry, but if it were entirely hopeless to enforce IP around AI training datasets, then the top image generative AI companies wouldn't be actively getting sued for exactly that: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/3--...
If you can find one supported by the FSF we'll certainly look into adding it.
Oh, that's very interesting. No mention of number of frames, (intentionally, I assume) so the frame count can vary as required; the width of the image will simply be wider if more frames are needed. I can't speak to other dev's needs, but I am a Dev, not an Artist, and I can say for me personally those 5 convention rules would make it quite easy for me to dynamically load animations, without the need for custom sprite-specific code handling.
If frame[i].X + frame[i].width > spritesheet.width Or frame[i].isAllTransparentPixels {set LastFrame = i - 1}I also agree with size optimization needs being a developer task, not an artist task. sprite-packing is highly engine-specific, so trying to pre-empt that step is more likely to increase work for the developer.
True. That's a problem for all conventions we've discussed so far. What about a JSON file included with each monster's spritesheet(s)? The JSON file would indicate what animations are supported, regardless of composite- (single file) or separate- (multiple file) animation spritesheet conventions. If separate data files give you the ick, how else would a game engine dynamically recognize the presence or absence of an animation? And would that be less cumbersome?
Looks like option #2 is off your page
Edit: ah ok. That explains it.
?? Why not just download it from the download link on this page?
Also, Kenney's page does download the assets as well. When you click the purple download button, it gives two options:
Which is pretty standard.
I think I understand now. In which case, it seems like any animation that could possibly be optional should be a separate file. However, I can imagine monsters where even the "move" animations are optional: ie a poison spine shooting killer plant. Doesn't move, but has a ranged attack. This is a fringe example, admittedly, but it does make me wonder: what animations, if any, should be together in a single file, then?
Pages