3 ms·

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

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?

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?