5 ms·

AI assets are a legal risk and need to be banned from the marketplace

41 points by lopkeny12ko 3y ago

gustavus 3y ago
As a clarification this is specifically about the unreal engine asset marketplace. Not in general.
accrual 3y ago
At a minimum there should be a separate AI-generated assets category instead of comingling with human-made assets. As far as licensing those assets and whether or not they can be included in game made for sale - I feel that still hasn't been fully ironed out. AI art isn't going away. We're still shaping the ways they can be used and licensed. They will probably find their way into every major game and title in the future, so some kind of structure needs to be created to allow or deny it. I wonder if we'll see "100% human made content" type tags/logos in the future, and if those products will command a higher price.
- dieselgate 3y ago
  Getty images has started to sell ai generated content so I’d assume they’ve vetted the legal side of things. But they’re shady so not sure - just another data point am not a lawyer
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Getty (like Adobe) has their own image generator trained on images they own. If the courts decide that other AI image generators violate copyright, then Getty and Adobe will be the big winners. https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about
    - xyzzy123 3y ago
      So torn by this, I hate both outcomes (AI copyright laundering is legal, companies can just plunder any images not kept behind a paywall OR adobe/getty win).
      - madeofpalk 3y ago
        What's wrong about what Adobe or Getty did? They trained on content they obtained the rights to. Ostensibly they did everything right.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        They're large incumbents and what they did isn't within reach for smaller competitors, so you establish a law that favors large corporations. Also, the creators presumably never specifically agreed to have their content used as AI training data and might rather object to that because then they have to compete with the AI generated content going forward. Which is the thing the creators don't want -- it isn't going to do them any more good just because they got a past payment which they'd have gotten regardless. What they want is for AI generated art to not exist, but that isn't going to happen. Given that, it doesn't do them any good to legitimize Getty or Adobe but not Midjourney etc.
- goles 3y ago
  > I wonder if we'll see "100% human made content" in the future I expect this is coming. Like seeing Certified Humane, Cage-Free, or Official League Merchandise stickers but on games, movies, art exhibitions, concerts. You can get 100% Made by Humans® verified products, which will add to the novelty of the experience. But you'd have to verify the supply chain of all the assets which is almost impossible to do even with physical products. It's also somewhat sad that even prior to todays AI authenticity was lacking in almost everything, human interactions, knock-offs, experiences (travel), news sources, and it will (probably) get even worse. Or maybe better if someone can pull this off well, anyone aware of anyone working on this currently?
tanseydavid 3y ago
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"
ametrau 3y ago
I think people will be surprised at how easily spam [1] ruins things and kills communities. [1] Computer generated “art” is spam.
- cheeze 3y ago
  Spam isn't the right term here. There is some great computer generated art out there that is absolutely not spam. The signal to noise ratio is what would ruin things IMO. There is a much higher risk when I can easily generate 1k models of a carpenter ant in a day.
- neom 3y ago
  It's true. In the early days of DeviantART it was really easy to upload an image, so people just uploaded any old crap. We added a bunch of friction to uploading things and the quality went way up. I spent a lot of time manning the help desk during that period, ha. So...folks have been managing junk in communities online for as long as I've been an internet'er.
yareal 3y ago
I'm stunned more people don't realize just how big of a risk they are. Both from a dilution of value of the marketplace, but also from a "no human made this, so there's no copyright". And yeah, it's not fully settled, but it could break at any time to "all AI assets are public domain". Big gamble to build on those.
wilg 3y ago
Seems like a misreading of the law. [It just means the copyright goes to the person who generated the AI image and that is the current working situation for AI copyright in the US.] [EDIT: WRONG] And the information about Steam banning AI is outdated, it is allowed as of the updated policy here: https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618 https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/38624...
- sp332 3y ago
  That's not right, no one owns the copyright on AI-generated images. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-what-do-about-it-2023-12-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-crea... That means the poster is wrong too, because without copyright, anyone is legally allowed to upload the images to the marketplace.
  - rynn 3y ago
    Current guidance is that AI-generated works are not copyrightable: 'If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.' https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There is some nuance to the document, but prompt-only works seem pretty clear.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rynn 3y ago
      @sp332, yes, sorry. I meant to reply to the top level comment.
GaggiX 3y ago
Well now Steam accepts AI in games, so that's not a problem anymore.
- elpocko 3y ago
  If Steam didn't accept AI in games since the beginning of Steam, there would be no Steam.

41 points by lopkeny12ko 3y ago

As a clarification this is specifically about the unreal engine asset marketplace. Not in general.

At a minimum there should be a separate AI-generated assets category instead of comingling with human-made assets. As far as licensing those assets and whether or not they can be included in game made for sale - I feel that still hasn't been fully ironed out. AI art isn't going away. We're still shaping the ways they can be used and licensed. They will probably find their way into every major game and title in the future, so some kind of structure needs to be created to allow or deny it. I wonder if we'll see "100% human made content" type tags/logos in the future, and if those products will command a higher price.

dieselgate 3y ago
Getty images has started to sell ai generated content so I’d assume they’ve vetted the legal side of things. But they’re shady so not sure - just another data point am not a lawyer
- leereeves 3y ago
  Getty (like Adobe) has their own image generator trained on images they own. If the courts decide that other AI image generators violate copyright, then Getty and Adobe will be the big winners. https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    So torn by this, I hate both outcomes (AI copyright laundering is legal, companies can just plunder any images not kept behind a paywall OR adobe/getty win).
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      What's wrong about what Adobe or Getty did? They trained on content they obtained the rights to. Ostensibly they did everything right.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        They're large incumbents and what they did isn't within reach for smaller competitors, so you establish a law that favors large corporations. Also, the creators presumably never specifically agreed to have their content used as AI training data and might rather object to that because then they have to compete with the AI generated content going forward. Which is the thing the creators don't want -- it isn't going to do them any more good just because they got a past payment which they'd have gotten regardless. What they want is for AI generated art to not exist, but that isn't going to happen. Given that, it doesn't do them any good to legitimize Getty or Adobe but not Midjourney etc.
goles 3y ago
> I wonder if we'll see "100% human made content" in the future I expect this is coming. Like seeing Certified Humane, Cage-Free, or Official League Merchandise stickers but on games, movies, art exhibitions, concerts. You can get 100% Made by Humans® verified products, which will add to the novelty of the experience. But you'd have to verify the supply chain of all the assets which is almost impossible to do even with physical products. It's also somewhat sad that even prior to todays AI authenticity was lacking in almost everything, human interactions, knock-offs, experiences (travel), news sources, and it will (probably) get even worse. Or maybe better if someone can pull this off well, anyone aware of anyone working on this currently?

tanseydavid 3y ago

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"

ametrau 3y ago

I think people will be surprised at how easily spam [1] ruins things and kills communities. [1] Computer generated “art” is spam.

cheeze 3y ago
Spam isn't the right term here. There is some great computer generated art out there that is absolutely not spam. The signal to noise ratio is what would ruin things IMO. There is a much higher risk when I can easily generate 1k models of a carpenter ant in a day.
neom 3y ago
It's true. In the early days of DeviantART it was really easy to upload an image, so people just uploaded any old crap. We added a bunch of friction to uploading things and the quality went way up. I spent a lot of time manning the help desk during that period, ha. So...folks have been managing junk in communities online for as long as I've been an internet'er.

yareal 3y ago

I'm stunned more people don't realize just how big of a risk they are. Both from a dilution of value of the marketplace, but also from a "no human made this, so there's no copyright". And yeah, it's not fully settled, but it could break at any time to "all AI assets are public domain". Big gamble to build on those.

wilg 3y ago

Seems like a misreading of the law. [It just means the copyright goes to the person who generated the AI image and that is the current working situation for AI copyright in the US.] [EDIT: WRONG] And the information about Steam banning AI is outdated, it is allowed as of the updated policy here: https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618 https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/38624...

sp332 3y ago
That's not right, no one owns the copyright on AI-generated images. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-created-content-surprising-answer-what-do-about-it-2023-12-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/who-owns-ai-crea... That means the poster is wrong too, because without copyright, anyone is legally allowed to upload the images to the marketplace.
- rynn 3y ago
  Current guidance is that AI-generated works are not copyrightable: 'If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.' https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There is some nuance to the document, but prompt-only works seem pretty clear.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rynn 3y ago
    @sp332, yes, sorry. I meant to reply to the top level comment.

GaggiX 3y ago

Well now Steam accepts AI in games, so that's not a problem anymore.

elpocko 3y ago
If Steam didn't accept AI in games since the beginning of Steam, there would be no Steam.