51–60 of 420 posts
> we are declining to distribute your game since it’s unclear if the underlying AI tech used to create the assets has sufficient rights to the training data.
It's not AI generate graphics. Instead, it's AI-generated graphics where the rights to the training data cannot be established. I think that's an important distinction.
How would you be able to know if something is AI generated if it's not outright stated in the product description? "Yes, I intentionally designed the static image of this man to have 5 and a half fingers on one hand with a distorted logo on their t-shirt, please allow this game, Valve." How can you prove that something is AI generated? Would creating graphics in Adobe's photoshop AI filler tool count as AI-generated…
> After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in [Game Name Here] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, [Game Name Here] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated…
Well, that was the entire point of banning AI generated content, right? Or, are you implying that the article states different reasons for the ban?
But AI generated content is NOT banned. You just have to prove you have the copyright (or permission) for the training data.
We're on the cusp of a profound content shovelware crisis. It will happen regardless, but any oasis of real content will become important. Automation will be a force multiplier for laziness and predation more so than for creativity.
Does that mean High on Life is now banned? If I recall correctly, they used AI on purpose to give ads and billboards a nonsense alien feel.
Interesting. So products that use AI generation as pet of an API, say using a diffusion model to generate different stylings for the walls and textures for a level creator, would fall under this? Guess it’s time to ask for forgiveness rather than ask for permission and not let Valve know where my art assets are coming from in my web-based API. If I were making a game I’d just lie and lie at this point.
Nowadays there isn't the same attitude so much. Many people still pirate sounds, but skeptic listeners will sometimes ask musicians to show off their project files to embarass them over how many pirated Cymatics drums they use and their version of Sylenth licensed to "RuTorrent".
It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happened today. AI-assisted development will take off for a while, and then people will ask self conscious questions like "nice art, who's your art director?"
Interesting. So products that use AI generation as pet of an API, say using a diffusion model to generate different stylings for the walls and textures for a level creator, would fall under this? Guess it’s time to ask for forgiveness rather than ask for permission and not let Valve know where my art assets are coming from in my web-based API. If I were making a game I’d just lie and lie at this point.
This gives social networks an edge, which often have EULAs that allow the business to use uploaded content _at least_ internally, if not commercially.
_And_, in the short term, there's an opportunity for someone to pay armies of artists to create _decent renditions_ of existing styles and known works. It's not a copyright violation if a human being mimics another human being in creating a new, original work.
> After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in [Game Name Here] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, [Game Name Here] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated…
Well, that was the entire point of banning AI generated content, right? Or, are you implying that the article states different reasons for the ban?
Notably: not all AI-generated content, but rather AI-generated content from models that were trained on material that's not owned by the person submitting the game.