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 think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
"Note: SVG files are plain white on transparent background and dont have any effects. Previews are created in gimp using artistic->softglow effect and colorize. Sorry if they are misleading"
Nmn is still active on the site. You are already aware of his profile. Why haven't you just messaged him or visited his home page? It has additional contact information.
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.
Nice!
Where are the credits listed?
There is no requirement that profile pictures adhere to submission guidelines; you aren't sharing your profile picture for FOSS distribution.
There are no restrictions beyond "try to keep it SFW" and "do not attempt to impersonate other users".
I think it would be easier to include a flag/checkbox/dropdown menu in the site search that restricted the search to specific collection(s) such as "my downloads" or "my favorites"
Either way, a good idea, so I'll keep that in mind for the next site version.
@DocHHH: what is the nature of your confusion? The previews seem to be a good representation of how the "File(s)" could be used. Was your question not adressed by the author's note?
Nmn is still active on the site. You are already aware of his profile. Why haven't you just messaged him or visited his home page? It has additional contact information.
Indeed I did. All 3 of the examples.
Pages