Consolidated AI Thread: A Discussion For Everything AI

Game Development Writing and Content
349

All comes from what is the origin of copyright that is allow the advance of technology and business development same time.

Think about this from the perspective of industrial revolution. Guilds and artisans opperate by a group extreme secretism. Because if anyone know your process you will lost all your profit.

Humanity has lost so many advances when a war or a epidemic just killed the one family that new how. Stardivarius last member of family died no longer world have the privilege of seeing a new one.

Industry need replication and share media and means of production. But if anyone can just create and copy what you did you gain nothing so nobody would share info.

Copyright and pattent allow that knowledge distributed always the original creator had their fair share and recognition.

A matchine doesn’t have a fame or intelligence to advance the art and technology it is a tool. And a tool can’t not possess.

To have a patent you have to have a sentient person who has created something dare transformative and novelty enough by the authorities

2 Likes
350

No argument there, I was only arguing that the “I made it with AI (that I didn’t train with my own images), thus I (instead of the company providing the service) should own it” claim sounds… waaaay off to me.

351

I agree but they part from a
perspective very easy to follow. You own a microphone that has a new modulation technology. Yes the modulation is something trademarked by other company but the song you sing is yours to copyright if it is original. Tools are tools.

However , they argument fails in a key point. If you don’t do anything to create that content and it is the tool just chooping other material protected. There is nothing transformative to be protected at all.

352

Thst’s where my paintbrush comparison comes in. The microphone/modulator is the paintbrush, I can’t just say “give me a Finnish punk rock song about sabers” and the modulator spits it out, I have to actually sing it (and still not necessarily have all rights to it, if it happens to be a cover song), but a language model would give me a song with only a prompt.

353

if that’s all you are doing then yes, the music is not copyrightable, since you need human element for the copyright, as AI is not capable of holding copyright, just like a monkey cannot copyright a photo it took using a camera.

but it’s honestly a non issue for most uses of AI, sure you can sell artworks from a vn, say Deluge: Sermon for the Dead that uses AI generated asset, but the author is still perfectly capable of selling the vn itself, they would prefer people to sell the artwork of course to spread the words of their work.

any human manipulation also makes the resulting art copyrightable, say you modified any AI outputted art, or even just generating multiple and carefully selecting the result, how much human manipulation is enough? no one knows because most aren’t bothered to take action because of what I said in the above paragraph.

1 Like
354

The question, to me, is to whom the copyright would belong, not how much human effort is required to make it copyrightable. If you copy a designer clothing item, it’s still a pirate copy of a designer clothing item, even if you did it yourself.

355

I mean if there is no human effort, the copyright belongs to no one since there is not even a copyright, if there is “sufficient” human effort then the copyright belongs to the creator, not the company that develops the technology, that’s how it legally works with current models on the market.

356

I’d assume it depends on what the EULA says, but maybe that’s just me. :woman_shrugging:

StableDiffusion isn’t even meant for commercial purposes, but research, if I’m not completely mistaken.

1 Like
357

I mean true, but all the service I know gives full right to you as the user, I honestly can’t name one that doesn’t, this goes for stable diffusion too, of course there’s limit on as I discussed, the copyright owner if there is one cannot be AI, and must be a human, but the effect of this ruling is negligible in most cases as I explained.

and yes that’s the original intention, but I don’t see how that’s applicable here, obviously now the service is open to anyone, and nowhere does it say you have to use it for research.

358

not any human interaction It has to have enough value and being valued as enough transformative and distinct

359

Only that you should make sure you know what kind of licence you’re using before selling something, you can’t just assume.

3 Likes
360

Are there any court rulings of this anywhere? Because as of right now, the federal court’s decision on the matter is quite plainly “If it is AI generated, it cannot have copyright law protection.” One of the reasonings behind that decision is the need for a human element, which you could have some of if one were to edit an AI created piece of art, but that’s not the law. It’s a justification for the law. The law, simply put, is that AI art cannot be copywritten. At least as far as I’ve been able to find.

EDIT:

Also, I’m not sure what you’re entirely trying to say here, because you mention the assets being AI made, but then mention the art from the VN as a separate talking point it seems. The law as it stands right now is, anyone can take the assets from that game that are made with AI without permission and use it in their own work without repercussion.

If the assets and art are one in the same in this point, then they can sell the art. But they can’t perform takedowns or copyright strikes on people simply taking that art and using it for themselves, even if they did not pay for said art in the first place. Short and long, if it’s made with AI, it’s free use.

361

The law is that a copyright cannot be attributed to an AI, not that AI generated asset cannot have copyright attributed to a human, I am quite confused on what you mean by justification, as it is plainly the case that AI generated work with human authorship belongs to the creator.

Any manipulation beyond just entering a prompt and getting the first art counts as authorship, you can read more here.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence

You can’t really do it as you don’t know if it was modified by human further, but even if it’s entirely AI generated, it does not matter that you can use the free asset from the VN in example and sell it, the creator would welcome it in fact instead, there is no incentive on either side to stop that from happening unless you are a big company, and even then they could use Trademark Protection instead, which is why you don’t see any lawsuits going after people despite many people selling AI artworks.

Lack of incentive and means to prove a lack of authorship combined makes this mostly a non-issue for small individual creators, it will be a long time and most likely never where this is regulated.

1 Like
362

I read the link you provided, which was very informative, but the statement you made above the link is just false. From the document you cited:

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” [33] Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.[34]
In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

If you pay close attention to the last sentence, it clearly specifies that the only copyrightable content of that transformative work, is the part of the work that is transformed. For example, if a person gave an AI a prompt and had it come up with an entire world, a bunch of city names, a bunch of characters, etc. If they had it come up with the premises of a story and the world it’s set in, and then the person wrote a book using sentences and paragraphs they create using that world and those characters that the AI came up with, the outcome isn’t a work you can fully copyright.

That person would be able to copyright the overall story; the book. The way the story is told. However, they cannot copyright any of the characters, any of the towns, any part of the world, because it was generated by AI. That’s why the distinction between using AI as a prompt (to come up with your own original ideas from based on what it gives you), and using an AI prompt (using work that an AI gives you directly from a prompt you gave it) are extremely important distinctions.

On the flip side of the example I gave, if an author has ideas for characters, and the world, and the story, and it prompts an AI to write that story using those characters and that world, then the opposite from before is true. Those characters and that world are viable for copyright. The book/game itself is not viable for copyright. The sentence structure, pacing, and way the piece of art was written was decided by AI. Therefore, the piece of art (book/game) could not be copywritten itself, however the ideas within it could.

This is why, for writing especially, publishers don’t want to have anything to do with AI. Because they won’t own the full material.

Once again, as stated in my earlier statement for your comment about the visual novel, and this quote is taken from the document you posted:

In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel [9] comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright.

No publishing company is ever going to agree to that when they could sign on developers that give them full rights to their created product. If someone is a lone developer seeking to individually create something, then they can. But again, they cannot claim anything generated by AI as theirs if they have not met the transformative requirements for such a product. If that developer is fine with people taking the art from the game and turning around and selling it and claiming it as their own, than more power to them.

But trademark wouldn’t protect that either. Trademark is protection of, “…a company’s or product’s brand identity, such as its name, logo, slogan, or other distinctive mark.” So they could trademark the name, but it’s a grey area if the name is AI generated, because then it can’t be copywritten, and trademarks only legally apply to products that are used to promote the use of the goods and services in commerce.

In short, the nuances of what is copyrightable and what isn’t, especially in text based art, makes it an extreme hassle. There is no way that a company like CoG is going to jump through the innumerable hoops it would take to even partially allow AI rather than just ban it altogether.

1 Like
363

Not that I doubt you, but are you sure “copywritten” is the correct word here?

364

I’m not actually sure and was doubting myself on that LOL Copywrote? Copywritten? Copyrighted?

Omg it’s copyrighted I’m pretty sure.

Fuck it, people will know what I mean in the context of the conversation.

1 Like
365

I don’t think that’s quite right, the example you outlined clearly falls under the case that the resulting work as a whole as original work, sure the original AI output is not copyrightable, but the resulting work is, including the setting.

The opposite example holds, if the author came up with the idea and setting and ask the AI to write a book with specific instructions such as structure, it should be enough for fulfilling the authorship requirement if editing was involved, even if on a purely grammar level.

I don’t think is a big deal, so what if you included an AI artwork in a game, and that art is free for anyone to sell? what does the individual lose in this case except more publicity? I am aware of multiple publishing company that’s selling books with AI generated cover at this moment, and no one would bat an eye if you take that cover art and sell it on ebay, it’s not a problem for both parties. Nevermind the logistics of AI generated text, being both unproveable and unpreventable, banning such things are just a fools errand especially as tech improves.

366

So it is right. Because since the AI originally pushed out those characters, that setting, that world; it doesn’t matter how you use those things because you’re not transforming those words. Or titles. Or names. If it pushes out the name Galahindra Evermantle, and you use the character Galahindra Evermantle, you cannot copyright that name because it is something that was generated by the AI. You did not transform it, you simply used it in your story.

That is a huge deal. Because the majority of those people are not going to sell that art and reference the original work. They’re not going to use the original name. There will be no publicity from it. They will take it, rename it, and sell it as their original work. That’s why most companies and publishers don’t want to touch AI with a ten foot pole. Because the point is they don’t own the work, and someone else can claim it.

I think you may be giving people as a whole too much credit. They won’t be nice about it. They won’t reference or tell people where it originally came from. They’re just going to say “This is mine.”

3 Likes
367

Sidenote, I actually like that name.

1 Like
368

Thank you, I came up with it on the spot. If it were copyrighted, I would give you permission to use it. I would need to do that here.

Y’know, since AI didn’t create it.

Otherwise you could just take it.

Blast! I’ve been had!

1 Like