I don't see any need for special handling of AI assisted artwork submissions as far as "drowning out" other artwork goes. Any user who floods the site with multiple rapid submissions already has their submissions squelched from appearing on the front page temporarily.
If submissions of AI assisted art are "trivial" (anyone could use the AI to make the same thing in just a few minutes) then, again, those submissions are treated the same as other "trivial" submissions. Any time someone draws a crude stick figure of limited usefulness and uploads it, it gets evaluated for how much effort it is saving anyone and will be taken down if it's quicker to make your own than to download that guy's version.
However, keeping it clear which submissions are AI assisted is important, in my opinion. Beyond just tagging something as being AI-generated or AI assisted, there are very specific Terms of Use for the various tools out there. Not all of them are compatible with the open licenses we support. For that reason, I will insist upon any such submission including a link to the specific version of AI tool that was used so that everyone can be confident the allowed usage of output will not get anyone in trouble.
It would be nice to add the checkbox or some additional prompting in the submission process for this. I'm not sure how feasible that is under the current geriatric site framework, though.
Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
@CrazyDuckGames: Same answer as above; you may make a post discussing the software, and include a link to the software, but the software itself is not an art asset, and should not be submitted as such.
You may submit the art assets that you produced with the software and, again, link to the software in the submission description, but it is the output of the software that are 2D art assets, not the software itself.
I'm wondering why OGA doesn't support the CC BY NC license?
Because it makes the assets effectively useless, unfortunately.
95% of all developers who come to OGA for the assets are using them in either an open-source project, or a revenue-generating project. -NC licenses are incompatible with both.
That article isn't what we've based the decision on, but it illustrates the problem well. Also, OGA is hosted in the US, so we typically don't go by German copyright law, but the results are basically the same everywhere in the Americas, Europe, and Japan: The meaning of "non-commercial" is very different from a legal standpoint than it is from a 'common understanding' standpoint. Even indirect generation of revenue by the free hosting site's sponsor may legally qualify as a "commercial use".
From your youtube channel to OGA? Yes, definitely.
From OGA to your youtube channel? Depends on where you plan to add it, but probably, yes.
ATMANAN
I don't see any need for special handling of AI assisted artwork submissions as far as "drowning out" other artwork goes. Any user who floods the site with multiple rapid submissions already has their submissions squelched from appearing on the front page temporarily.
If submissions of AI assisted art are "trivial" (anyone could use the AI to make the same thing in just a few minutes) then, again, those submissions are treated the same as other "trivial" submissions. Any time someone draws a crude stick figure of limited usefulness and uploads it, it gets evaluated for how much effort it is saving anyone and will be taken down if it's quicker to make your own than to download that guy's version.
However, keeping it clear which submissions are AI assisted is important, in my opinion. Beyond just tagging something as being AI-generated or AI assisted, there are very specific Terms of Use for the various tools out there. Not all of them are compatible with the open licenses we support. For that reason, I will insist upon any such submission including a link to the specific version of AI tool that was used so that everyone can be confident the allowed usage of output will not get anyone in trouble.
It would be nice to add the checkbox or some additional prompting in the submission process for this. I'm not sure how feasible that is under the current geriatric site framework, though.
How would you use it if it were a .png?
Done.
Thanks for all the debugging data. We're still trying to figure out the cause, but so far it looks like... just lots and lots of traffic, basically. Botanic has made some adjustments that should allow for more requests without hitting the server's limits, but it might not be the solution to the underlying problem... or it could be exactly what is needed, but traffic may continue to increase, resulting in similar issues again later.
I expect the errors to be less frequent now, at least temporarily, but please continue to indicate when you get the errors so we can track this trend. Again, thanks all for taking the time to help us debug this. :)
@CrazyDuckGames: Same answer as above; you may make a post discussing the software, and include a link to the software, but the software itself is not an art asset, and should not be submitted as such.
You may submit the art assets that you produced with the software and, again, link to the software in the submission description, but it is the output of the software that are 2D art assets, not the software itself.
Because it makes the assets effectively useless, unfortunately.
95% of all developers who come to OGA for the assets are using them in either an open-source project, or a revenue-generating project. -NC licenses are incompatible with both.
Here is an article about German courts conclusions regarding -NC licenses: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/03/27/german-court-says-creative-commons-n...
EDIT: here is the PDF document mentioned in the article: "Consequences, Risks, and side-effects of the license module Non-Commercial -- NC"
That article isn't what we've based the decision on, but it illustrates the problem well. Also, OGA is hosted in the US, so we typically don't go by German copyright law, but the results are basically the same everywhere in the Americas, Europe, and Japan: The meaning of "non-commercial" is very different from a legal standpoint than it is from a 'common understanding' standpoint. Even indirect generation of revenue by the free hosting site's sponsor may legally qualify as a "commercial use".
Does it still disable your browsers spell check if you click "disable rich-text" below the text box?
Pages