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.
Yes. They are each very different. Well, CC-By and GPL are very different, but there is also a reason for version 2 and version 3 to be listed on this asset.
GPL makes it easy to use this audio in your project if your project already uses GPL content.
CC-BY makes it easy for you to use it in your project if your project uses anything other than GPL content.
That should be fine. So long as the models don't use any existing trademarks (you have been making your own brands, so this should not be an issue) nor explicit verbiage or imagry (real-life sexual well-being products use only medical terminology and have no explicit imagry on the packages as far as I know, so I assume you will be mimicing this practice as well, and therefore should not be an issue)
EDIT: Actually, I have seen some condom packages with rather racey iimagery on them. I would recommend avoiding this style of provocative sexual imagery on the products. To be clear, condom packages etc should be fine, so long as they are the medical/neutral style.
To add my own opinion on this, I would say a chord progression is not enough "content" by itself to be a copyrighted work. As glitchart stated, AI output cannot be copyrighted. However, because of the nature of how AI's are trained, their output may still infringe upon the copyright of others. That being said, a single chord progression is probably not enough to infringe anything. It's like trying to copyright a color palette. An elaborate painting that was created using those colors may be subject to copyright, but not the colors themselves. I guess it depends on how elaborate this chord progression is.
Complexity aside, how are you "recreat[ing] it from scratch"? If it is truly being created from scratch, did you need the AI output at all? I would argue the AI output is being used in some way to produce your own version, not truly created from scratch. However, the way it is being used may simply be as inspiration. If you are listening to the AI-produced chord progression, and using that to inspire you to create (even a similar) chord progression of your own, that is inspiration. If you are memorizing the notes and reproducing the exact same notes in a new set of chords, that ... may still technically count as "copying" and therefore a derivative of AI output. Just as it would still be considered copying if you closely studied a copyrighted work of pixel art, then created a replica of it pixel-by-pixel from eidetic memory.
It's ok to be inspired by an existing work that leads to you creating a new work, even if the new work has some similarities to the original. The line that separates inspiration from derivation is, unfortunately, fuzzy and- sometimes- moving.
Q: For the scenario you outlined above, how would copyright law see it?
A: I don't know. In all likelihood, it would not care so long as you were contributing a significant amount of creative input, and not just relying on the majority of the work to be done by the AI.
Q: For the scenario you outlined above, how would OGA see it in regards to submission rules?
A: Depending on how complex the original chord progression is (e.g. de minimis? ) and depending on how closely you replicated it and what method was used to do so, it may be "inspiration" and would not be considered an "AI assisted asset". Or it could be considered borderline, and may be permitted with limitations, and it would need to be labelled as AI assisted. However, those are the two possibilities for the scenario you've described: "Yes it's fine" or "Maybe, it's kind of ok", but not "No, definitely not allowed"
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.
LOL
As another practical example, GabrielTurner uses AI to comment on AI discussions :P
Yes. They are each very different. Well, CC-By and GPL are very different, but there is also a reason for version 2 and version 3 to be listed on this asset.
GPL makes it easy to use this audio in your project if your project already uses GPL content.
CC-BY makes it easy for you to use it in your project if your project uses anything other than GPL content.
See FAQ "What do the licenses mean" and "Some artists have multiple licenses listed..."
That should be fine. So long as the models don't use any existing trademarks (you have been making your own brands, so this should not be an issue) nor explicit verbiage or imagry (real-life sexual well-being products use only medical terminology and have no explicit imagry on the packages as far as I know, so I assume you will be mimicing this practice as well, and therefore should not be an issue)
EDIT: Actually, I have seen some condom packages with rather racey iimagery on them. I would recommend avoiding this style of provocative sexual imagery on the products. To be clear, condom packages etc should be fine, so long as they are the medical/neutral style.
Does "Tibia-style" = overhead oblique projection?
Report Spam button should be used to report all such things.
To add my own opinion on this, I would say a chord progression is not enough "content" by itself to be a copyrighted work. As glitchart stated, AI output cannot be copyrighted. However, because of the nature of how AI's are trained, their output may still infringe upon the copyright of others. That being said, a single chord progression is probably not enough to infringe anything. It's like trying to copyright a color palette. An elaborate painting that was created using those colors may be subject to copyright, but not the colors themselves. I guess it depends on how elaborate this chord progression is.
Complexity aside, how are you "recreat[ing] it from scratch"? If it is truly being created from scratch, did you need the AI output at all? I would argue the AI output is being used in some way to produce your own version, not truly created from scratch. However, the way it is being used may simply be as inspiration. If you are listening to the AI-produced chord progression, and using that to inspire you to create (even a similar) chord progression of your own, that is inspiration. If you are memorizing the notes and reproducing the exact same notes in a new set of chords, that ... may still technically count as "copying" and therefore a derivative of AI output. Just as it would still be considered copying if you closely studied a copyrighted work of pixel art, then created a replica of it pixel-by-pixel from eidetic memory.
It's ok to be inspired by an existing work that leads to you creating a new work, even if the new work has some similarities to the original. The line that separates inspiration from derivation is, unfortunately, fuzzy and- sometimes- moving.
Not sure this qualifies as broaching the topic, since there are already several discussions about it already present on the site (one example: https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork ) but I do agree it should be discussed.
Pages