There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing frivolous DMCA notices.
Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
61–70 of 153 posts
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#62Could the sequence of events be: 1) open source project publishes source 2) AI scrapes source 3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source 4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
It's very unlikely. The DMCA notification is from Microsoft, who owns Minecraft. The sequence of events is: 1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders 2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots 3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots 4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
technically the DMCA notice is from Tracer, some AI copyright troll acting at the behest of Microsoft. Not that it actually matters, just expect to see Microsoft hide behind this fact as a way to deflect blame.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#63> We received a similar notice from the same company in 2023 and successfully appealed against it. This company also filed a similar notice this year against an indie game with similar voxel art style by the name of Allumeria. They'll backtrack and apologize - again. At some point, the pathway for Microsoft to regain some of the goodwill associated with Minecraft is to fire the senior lawyer most responsible for send…
> At some point, the pathway for Microsoft to regain some of the goodwill associated with Minecraft is to fire the senior lawyer most responsible for sending out these notices.
Why would anyone with brain give them any good will for that? I might believe them if they would give Luanti 2x the damages and gave in writing that they will pay 10x damages the next time this happens.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's...straight-up false. Unless you have some source for this, you're just lying here. Yes, it's inspired by Minecraft. The screenshots are of voxel-based survival crafter games you can build with their platform. The textures are not Minecraft textures. They are similar in style, sure, but that's not remotely the same thing. You can't copyright a general visual style, nor can you copyright a game genre. To call th…
> Yes, it's inspired by Minecraft. More likely that Minecraft was inspired by Luanti since Luanti was released first. (at least, formally released)
Well no, Minecraft was already wildly popular while it was in beta. Luanti was explicitly inspired by Minecraft, as stated in the article it was named Minetest up until a few years ago.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#65Could the sequence of events be: 1) open source project publishes source 2) AI scrapes source 3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source 4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
If you look at the screenshots of the game in question, it's pretty obvious what is going on https://www.luanti.org/en/#gallery Even though those are mods, it's a bad look to be holding those up as reference game images.
Meh. Luanti is nearly as old as minecraft itself. You could say just as well that they copied the style of infiniminer.
If your whole shtick is creating blocky games with retro-easy-to-recreate 8x8 or 16x16 textures it's not really weird people easily imitate it.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#66There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing frivolous DMCA notices.
I mean there definitely are penalties, but they only exist if you actually go to court. DMCA essentially serves as game of chicken with no one actually wanting to go to court.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being block based doesn't mean it is using Minecraft assets. Minecraft does not own the idea of having a block based world, and there are quite a few popular (and many unpopular) block-based games. If you played Minecraft you should be able to tell that none of the assets are Minecraft assets.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, juries are generally a good thing), it's a jury of randos that will be shown the screenshots and asked to make a determination. https://www.luanti.org/en/#gallery What percentage of the population would see those screenshots and say "Definitely Luanti" 0.00001%? 0.001%?
If they put them side by side with the closest minecraft equivalent? Hopefully a few.
If it was a clone, surely the images would be the same.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that isn't what that case ruled at all. It ruled that the program generating the code cannot be the author.
interesting interpretation. most other articles on the topic have a different interpretation. if the AI can not be the author, then who can? is writing the prompt enough to establish being the creator? i think we need a few more cases to get an answer to that.
Clicking a button is enough to become an "author" of the photo, and writing a prompt requires more skill.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#69It's just the usual corporate censorship via "good faith" DMCA notices that nobody but other corporations can afford to actually fight.
In general DMCA notices are actually very cheap to fight. You just submit a counter notice. The lawsuit that can follow (but very unlikely here) can be expensive to fight.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#70There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing frivolous DMCA notices.
I mean there definitely are penalties, but they only exist if you actually go to court. DMCA essentially serves as game of chicken with no one actually wanting to go to court.
Penalties and counter-suits require intentional misrepresentation by the claimant, which is so painfully unprovable that the existence of penalties for malicious claims may as well not exist. I mean I suppose it can stop some rando guy from sending out claims for lols, but stuff like what Microsoft and a number of other corps do is extremely predictable and certainly malicious in nature.