4 ms·

I've coded dozens of procedural asset/"art" generators. It's really surprising to me that, apparently, the output of my creative work (i.e. the novel algorithms

I've coded dozens of procedural asset/"art" generators. It's really surprising to me that, apparently, the output of my creative work (i.e. the novel algorithms) is not protected by copyright.

kimixa 2y ago
I've coded a JPEG compressor. It's clear the output of the machine isn't exactly the same of the input, being lossy, so I guess the output is not protected by copyright either.
- elpocko 2y ago
  The input to your JPEG compressor is an image that someone/something created, and the goal of your compressor is to replicate its input as closely as possible. It doesn't create new data, it merely encodes pre-existent data. The input to my algorithms is a single number, and the goal is to create something new and distinctive that is clearly different from anything that existed before, and that wouldn't exist without the ingenuity of my algorithms.
  - kimixa 2y ago
    Really, the "input" to current deep learning algorithms includes all the training data. Which is where the root of the issue is. There's a reason why compression comparisons tend to include the size of the decompressor in their comparisons - my "magic algorithm can compress wikipedia down to a single bye!" is less impressive with the "decompressor" contains a copy of wikipedia.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
vrighter 2y ago
We go back several decades, when "computer" meant a person with a pen and paper. The output of those computers could be copyrighted... by the computer, not you.
jeroenhd 2y ago
Your creative work (the novel algorithms) are protected under normal copyright. Depending on where you live, you may even be able to patent those algorithms. The output of those algorithms isn't a creative work (as you're running a creative work to generate them, not applying any kind of creativity once the program is finished), so it's not protected. Same with generated code. The lines get a bit blurry when you start applying a creative process onto the generated work. The edits you do on generated images in Photoshop may be considered creative work, as may the edits you do to generated code. Protections only apply as far as copyright/trademark law can apply. In the case of generative AI and LLMs, it seems that copyright/trademark law doesn't consider the generated output to be a derivate work of the data model, or the model is not a derivative work of the input dataset. As a result, the output of generative AI doesn't seem to be restricted by the license of the training material. In theory, a sufficiently powerful generative AI may be able to generate entire Disney movies, which would not be considered derivative works under the current laws, as far as I can tell. I'm sure the moment Disney gets threatened, AI copyright law will be updated, though.
- elpocko 2y ago
  I have an unreleased game that contains thousands of procedurally generated 3d models, textures and sounds. I've worked for years on those algorithms; they are my brushes and my paint. So when (if) I release that game, anyone can just rip the assets, not even apply any transformation, and put them in their own product. I would have to let them do it with no legal recourse. That doesn't seem right.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    Rules and algorithms in general (and in the US) are not covered by copyright. The expression of those rules as a creative work is, but the rules themselves are not. To that end, anyone could take your procedures and duplicate the effects of them to release their own game. The combination of those procedures in the specific form of your game is protected, but only to the extent that what is protected isn’t essential to running the procedure. So in its simplest (and most general because law is complex) form, if you release a “game” that uses a deterministic procedure to change individual pixel colors on the screen in response to user input, almost nothing of that is covered under copyright. If your procedure instead places tiles of artwork created by you, those tiles and a game using your procedure to place those tiles in that way is protected, but someone else could replace all your tiles and release their own game with the same procedures.

I've coded dozens of procedural asset/"art" generators. It's really surprising to me that, apparently, the output of my creative work (i.e. the novel algorithms) is not protected by copyright.

kimixa 2y ago

I've coded a JPEG compressor. It's clear the output of the machine isn't exactly the same of the input, being lossy, so I guess the output is not protected by copyright either.

elpocko 2y ago
The input to your JPEG compressor is an image that someone/something created, and the goal of your compressor is to replicate its input as closely as possible. It doesn't create new data, it merely encodes pre-existent data. The input to my algorithms is a single number, and the goal is to create something new and distinctive that is clearly different from anything that existed before, and that wouldn't exist without the ingenuity of my algorithms.
- kimixa 2y ago
  Really, the "input" to current deep learning algorithms includes all the training data. Which is where the root of the issue is. There's a reason why compression comparisons tend to include the size of the decompressor in their comparisons - my "magic algorithm can compress wikipedia down to a single bye!" is less impressive with the "decompressor" contains a copy of wikipedia.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

vrighter 2y ago

We go back several decades, when "computer" meant a person with a pen and paper. The output of those computers could be copyrighted... by the computer, not you.

jeroenhd 2y ago

Your creative work (the novel algorithms) are protected under normal copyright. Depending on where you live, you may even be able to patent those algorithms. The output of those algorithms isn't a creative work (as you're running a creative work to generate them, not applying any kind of creativity once the program is finished), so it's not protected. Same with generated code. The lines get a bit blurry when you start applying a creative process onto the generated work. The edits you do on generated images in Photoshop may be considered creative work, as may the edits you do to generated code. Protections only apply as far as copyright/trademark law can apply. In the case of generative AI and LLMs, it seems that copyright/trademark law doesn't consider the generated output to be a derivate work of the data model, or the model is not a derivative work of the input dataset. As a result, the output of generative AI doesn't seem to be restricted by the license of the training material. In theory, a sufficiently powerful generative AI may be able to generate entire Disney movies, which would not be considered derivative works under the current laws, as far as I can tell. I'm sure the moment Disney gets threatened, AI copyright law will be updated, though.

elpocko 2y ago
I have an unreleased game that contains thousands of procedurally generated 3d models, textures and sounds. I've worked for years on those algorithms; they are my brushes and my paint. So when (if) I release that game, anyone can just rip the assets, not even apply any transformation, and put them in their own product. I would have to let them do it with no legal recourse. That doesn't seem right.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  Rules and algorithms in general (and in the US) are not covered by copyright. The expression of those rules as a creative work is, but the rules themselves are not. To that end, anyone could take your procedures and duplicate the effects of them to release their own game. The combination of those procedures in the specific form of your game is protected, but only to the extent that what is protected isn’t essential to running the procedure. So in its simplest (and most general because law is complex) form, if you release a “game” that uses a deterministic procedure to change individual pixel colors on the screen in response to user input, almost nothing of that is covered under copyright. If your procedure instead places tiles of artwork created by you, those tiles and a game using your procedure to place those tiles in that way is protected, but someone else could replace all your tiles and release their own game with the same procedures.