Primary tabs

Comments by User

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 - 10:50

Done 

Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 01:19

What does it being a toddler game have to do with linking to the game?

Tuesday, July 11, 2023 - 12:45

Agreed. 

I have encountered some of that, but I may have had better luck shutting their lies down since the reason I rejected their art was not because it was AI art. It was because it didn't meet my commission criteria. In my case, I didn't care if it was AI or not so long as it created a stable animation loop that transitioned smoothly and realistically. The artwork they tried to give me and say "I finished the commission. pay up." looked like crap when it was animated. So I said, "no, you didn't finish. My requirements clearly say xyz and this doesn't meet that." 

My point being, be sure to define your requirements in a way that excludes the garbage artifacts that often show up in AI art. Specifying "no AI art" might help a little, though I think you'll get more of the 'this is a witch hunt' responses for that. It isn't actually very specific. It's like saying "no blockchain!" but there are multiple forms of blockchain tech, many of which have nothing to do with the typical notorious "Steal art, mint NFT, sell it without artist's permission, argue the theft is actually beneficial to artist when caught" tactic.

Monday, July 10, 2023 - 15:59
  • AI will cause rates that artists are paid to plummet.
  • "To get a good result out of AI the client will need to clearly specify what he wants. Designers, we are safe."
  • AI (currently) sucks at producing game-ready assets aside from concept art.
  • AI is just a next gen tool FOR artists.

These four suppositions can all be true at the same time and, IMHO, seem to suggest a good outcome for us ahead.

laypeople like myself may be able to use AI to create artwork that would otherwise be beyond their reach without hiring artists. However, at least for me, the content I can prompt is still only the kind of stuff I wouldn't have hired an artist for anyway.

Commissioned artists already have an edge with the skills it takes to understand what the client really wants (which is a crossover skill with AI prompting), and they have the skills to manually alter an AI image to get it juuuust right.

Aritst: How about this? <AI generated concept scene>
Client: No. More blood. Less cotton candy.
Artist: Oh, so it's a *creepy* tickle monster, not a *cutesy* tickle monster. So like this? <New AI generated concept scene featuring elongated-fingers-with-too-many-joints instead of feathers>
Client: yeah! but... now make it move like in video games where it can play on repeat and still look good.
Artist: Make a spritesheet of it with stable animation loops and walk cycles? 
Client: Yeah, that.

Artist can save a bunch of time by leveraging AI to communicate the client's desires without hours of wasted concept sketches. The artist still has to chisel off the rough edges and make it work right. Commission rates may drop, but not necessarily because artists are being paid less per hour. They'll just have to work less hours to get the same tasks done.

Thursday, July 6, 2023 - 13:43

Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".

Thursday, July 6, 2023 - 12:52

@Dream_search_repeat: I failed to address your response.

I took photos of a DS and a switch, for both reference and texturing (and i modify the images to remove logos, and buttons)

The copyrighted object in this scenario is the photograph, not the DS or switch. Fortunately, you are the photographer and I assume you gave yourself permission to make a derivative of your own work, so there is no copyright concern with how that reference was used.

I didn't knew a shape could be copyrighted...

It can't be copyrighted. Not in this sense, anyway. However, they can be trademarked, and that is more of the crux of the issue. I know you already removed them, so it isn't really a problem at this point, but I want to make sure you're satisfied with your understanding of it so you can feel confident in the work you do and that it won't be trouble for you. The TV and smartphone look fine to me, both from a copyright perspective and a trademark perspective (they're too generalized to be mistaken for any one brand) but the DS and Switch should (remain) removed OR altered in shape and/or color scheme to avoid people thinking they're official Nintendo models.

Note that nearly every console company has allowances for how their trademarked consoles or controllers can be depicted by off-brand parties. How else would games be able to show a controller diagaram indicating the button mapping? Every non-sony playstation game company would be sued for trademark violations just for showing a playstation controller in their playstation game. However, those brand usage terms are considered a proprietary license, and are rarely compatible with any of the licenses used on OGA.

TL;DR: You can use such models in your own projects, but they couldn't be hosted on OGA without making them distinct from the trademarked brand... which kind of defeats the purpose of having a model that is supposed to be recognizable as the brand-named device. Sorry :/

Thursday, July 6, 2023 - 12:28

Haha! It sounds like you are "disagreeing" but saying the same thing; tracing = derivative. I believe the point Ragnar was making is that you can use an object "as a reference" without actually tracing its shape or detail. Looking at my avatar as inspiration for creating an asset featuring an inverted pyramid, lightning, and a cloud... a new work could be created that is not a derivative of my logo so long as my logo was not materially used to copy the shape, texture, proportion, etc. but instead just provides a visual "reference" to inspire.

(Arguably, it is possible to still create a derivate by looking to one asset, and attempting to replicate it without actually overlaying the two or splicing pieces of the original into the new asset, but the point is that making a similar looking asset does not in-and-of-itself constitute derivation... Also my logo is trademarked, so yes it could be used as inspiration, but if the resultant "inspired asset" looked too similar, it would still be IP trouble, just not copyright trouble. :P More on that below.)

When you look at some existing peice of art and use that as inspiration for your own art, I shy away from calling that "using a reference". It may fit the term, but it confuses the discussion. "reference" in this sense applies to both inspiration and derivation, so I recommend defining how the "reference" is being used so the distinction between derivation and inspiration is not lost. 

As to Dream's question "I can't model/draw using references?" I have to give the typical Lawyer Answer™ it depends. As Umplix said, You can use a reference, as long as that reference is not copyrighted... but furthermore, how are you using the reference to create your model/drawing? If by "reference" you mean you looked at it and liked certain features of it and that inspired you to make your own similar asset, then yes, that is fine, even when that "reference" is copyrighted. However, if by "reference" you mean you carefully studied it and imitated minute details, comparing them side-by-side to make sure the two match on some or several features, then no you should not use any copyrighted assets as a "reference", as that constitutes derivation.

Again, this only covers the difference between inspiration vs. derivation of copyrighted works. Trademarks are another beast and they don't care if it is derived or inspired; if it looks so similar that a reasonable person might mistake yours for the officially trademarked asset, then it violates trademark. Most assets are not trademarked, but the Nintendo Switch look-and-theme are. 

Wednesday, July 5, 2023 - 12:08

^Solid advice from Umplix and Ragnar.

the flatscreen TV and smartphone are safe from trademark concerns. As long as you didn't use a copyrighted image or model to copy off of for those, they're also safe from copyright concerns.

Most devices don't have a strong enough design asthetic to have a solid trademark associated with the shape and theme of the device itself, but Nintendo's stuff is often an exception; Because the device itself is often the product logo (especially the switch) they have a strong trademark based on the very shape and look of their devices. The DS is possibly too close to Nintendo Trademark and definitely the Switch is too close to Nintendo Trademark, unfortunately.

If you are able to change both the color scheme and some of the underlying shape of those, it should help. However, as the gentlemen indicated above, the question of derivation still remains; what other objects/images/assets where used in the creation of those models and how were they used, if any?

Friday, June 30, 2023 - 11:49

opens fine for me. Can you take a screenshot of the page you're seeing?

Friday, June 30, 2023 - 11:29

IIRC it was you the person that commented that it had not free license inside the archive file. The the creator said something like "I deleted the file with proprietary license and stick with OGA-BY3". I found that asset on itch and here so I writed comment here "Will you sync license here and on itch?". Then I got email that duplicates comment "Ah yes I'm having trouble with licenses. Unfortunately, I cannot make my own

on OGA. If that is a problem, I guess I'll just have to remove it from OGA". :\

...And what was the follow-up comment to that? https://opengameart.org/content/coolpunk-puzzle-platformer-asset-pack

Pages