If you respect the art of game development in any way, please, do not use AI Art.

[someone1100]

I feel like it will take a very long time for AI art to actually get on the level of real people, it isn't a threat as it is now because there are easily visible mistakes in the artwork as well as the fact that a lot of it looks like the same style and from what I know it's hard to recreate a character with AI art, for now it's just a fun toy it won't actually replace artists. Maybe in another 20 years we can have this conversation because that is I believe the minimum amount of time for AI art to be good.

 

[123edc]

you still need real news reporters for the content, since ChatGPT doesn't have access to the newest info in the world.

but the work of transcribing it falls under the wheels of automation

and that is only possible, becouse a ai was trained via real date from hundreds of thausends of ppl out there ... in the end, be it writing, drawing or coding ... it IS the exact same argument

so, either we talk about all of them ... or non of them ...
the "i work in a ... so a is bad ... but i don't care about b, that's your buisness, not mine" approach is wrong ... just wrong

 

[Tamina]

but the work of transcribing it falls under the wheels of automation

Why would you want to automate news report, what is the point?

If you have an interview with someone, and you recorded everything. what is the point to type the whole conversation into ChatGPT and have it write everything for you, THEN spend time to fix the output error?

It feels like doing the same work twice.

 

[Tai_MT]

That is your opinion about video games, not a fact. Slot machine/gacha is a business model. As long as a game has defined game mechanics, such as winning/losing condition and same set of rules then it is a game.

You can argue gacha is not fun, or a bad business model, or unethical, or you dislike it....but it does fit every definition of a game.

Funny enough, slot machines which are less of a game than gacha is considered a game on wiki and google, and slot machine game design is discussed on reddit game design sub often.

You have a winning(win money) and losing(no money) condition. You hit 777 and you win(game rule). The business model being chance based doesn't make it not a game.

A game is not defined by needing "skill", it is defined by having game mechanics. Additionally, many gacha titles require skill, especially arpg. Having a strong character does not make you win if you can't control it well.

Therefore, I view gacha as games unless they purposely removed game mechanics in a title. Most gaming websites view gacha as games too.

You are free to have a different opinion on this by the way, but until every gaming media stops viewing gacha as games and remove them from gaming websites....I would use this term the same way as everyone else.

If the game "plays itself", I don't consider it a video game. A game typically involves "a measure of skill". At least to me.

Are you really "playing a game" if you're just yanking on a lever and wishing to get what you want? May as well call "prayer" a "game" at that point.

In either case, this is subject for a different topic if you wish to discuss it.

I don't hold this as "an opinion", but rather a mirror of facts and logic to justify the viewpoint.

An "opinion" would be, "I think these flowers are beautiful". Opinions cannot be proven correct or incorrect as they are subjective personal assessments. As such, they're unassailable.

So, youre desire to argue "opinion" already tells everyone involved that it is not "an opinion", but rather something provable through facts and logic.

So, if you're interested in debating facts and logic...

You need a new thread.

Otherwise, this is a moot point (as it always was).

Also, nobody argued it wasn't a "business model". Not sure where you came up with that, but you sure do like erecting Straw Men in those fields to topple.

It would help if you didn't pull what I say out of context to erect those Straw Men. Which... is funny for you to do since you accused me of "moving the goalposts" when you didn't even know what the goalposts were, since you skim what I read, pull things I write out of context, and then make arguments on things I never talked about.

I don't feel like repeating again about this...yes, sometimes it is more useful to pay someone for a few images and make employees do rest of the work, it depends.

Yes, it depends. Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Not sure why it took you so long to do so... but I'm glad you finally arrived at this point.

So you haven't seen the financial records yourself, on the same time you are very sure they are all doing wrong and stupid. How did you get such confidence?

From a business standpoint, IE: How the industry runs, yes, very stupid. If you're talking about outliers, then they're just that... OUTLIERS.

Exceptions do not disprove rules. They are merely exceptions. Often, those exceptions are like comparing apples to oranges, so not very useful in terms of debate in the slightest.

You'd have to tell me which games have operated PURELY on "commissions" and then we could dig into those financial records to find out.

I've already mentioned that I'd be willing to change my mind on thius subject. In fact, that's what you're quoting. You are quoting the moment where I said, "I don't know, we'd have to look to see if they were successful". Then, instead of going, "Oh! I can provide proof that they were, here it is!", you went, "You didn't do research on this thing that I'm supposedly an expert on, and I'm not willing to spend the time to prove you wrong, so instead I'll just try to play 'gotcha'!".

I gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong. To change my mind.

Instead, you went, "If you don't know, then how can you claim they're stupid!?" like a petulant child. I mean, if YOU DON'T KNOW if they're successful, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THEY'RE NOT STUPID?

It works both ways, my man. You can't make an argument and then not expect the same argument to be turned back against you.

The smartest move here, if you didn't have that knowledge either would just be to say, "Yeah, I don't know either, and it's not worth getting upset about.". Or, if you did have the knowledge, to just be like, "Hey, look up this game, here's where the records of what the game made are, and here's how much the contract was for the Commissions was".

I suspect the reason you didn't go into "here's why you're wrong" is because you did a quick google search and couldn't find a way to prove that the "Artists" were even on "Commission" for the game to begin with.

Probably, because the video game industry doesn't hire "by Commission" for most projects, for the reasons I stated. They hire the artists on as "part of the art team".

Aside from like... fringe things like your "gacha" games, where all that matters is "it's a pretty girl".

But, that's neither here nor there. We're not discussing "Gacha Games". You can make a separate topic for discussing that if you so desire. I've no interest in a minority of video games that isn't "the norm". I operate on generalities, like most people.

it depends. If I only need one minor thing to be designed and one problem to solve, then I don't need to hire that person for 2 years. That is a waste of money.

Except...

If that design needs to be changed 1.5 years after it is made, I can pay another one time fee and have them do it again, or ask my employee to do it, or find a new person, whatever. It all depends on availability.

Now it's a waste of money to have not hired them on to do the job. Because, now you've blown money on something you'll never use, in a project that doesn't need it.

But, even this scenario is "an exception". You're talking about doing little Indie Games like we have here in these forums. You're not talking about the Video Game industry at all.

Even then, in the context of "Indie Games", it's a rare scenario that you'd "only need one thing".

I have no artistic talent what-so-ever. If I wanted artwork for anything, I'd have to buy it, or hire someone at all. So, my options are "use the RTP", "Buy DLC", "Commission Artwork", or "Get free artwork off the internet".

If I hire an artist, there's less "art mismatch" (or rather, what we call... keeping the same aesthetic), then it's smarter than paying for every individual piece of artwork they make, or rework they have to make.

It makes no sense to hire an artist for a single image or thing when it has the potential to "mismatch" against all the other artwork you have. It's jarring and immersion breaking to have artwork clash like that.

Heck, even if your argument here, you're talking about having A HIRED EMPLOYEE do your artwork for you, rather than Commission it again. EVEN YOU ADMIT that it's better to HAVE SOMEONE HIRED ON by virtue of your admitted business practice.

I'm also not sure why you'd Commission someone for "something minor" either. That seems like a gross waste of money. Especially since if it's minor, you could likely cut it and not worry about it... or you could work around it... or you could just have your existing art team deal with it.

Basically, your argument here could use some clarifying. What is it you consider "minor" that you'd "pay for Commission" for, and what would you "have your team" work on?

I'd just hire the team and have that team do all the work. Cheaper, less headaches, less aesthetic clash, easier to monitor workload and productivity, easier to get your money's worth. You also don't have to hire a lawyer for an individual contract. Most game companies must agree with this sentiment, because that's generally how they work.

This is not "scam", even if the first design is scrapped after paying for them. Since I've already received the first design, the fee is not wasted. You are the only person saying one time fee system is "scam" if you choose to ditch a design that you paid for.

No, it is a scam. If I pay you for a design, and that design isn't what I want it to be... Well, now you either have to rework that design for me, without new payment... or you'll decide you need new payment for a rework of that design.

Either I'm scamming you, or you're scamming me.

What if I need you to rework that piece 10 or more times as the artwork on the project evolves? Or, as the themes do? Are you REALLY going to rework my single commissioned piece that many times?

I doubt it.

That's why it's a scam.

Financially irresponsible. It's why only young children and the economically ignorant pay for Commission like this. They're all "Let me get all my assets up front, 'cause that will ensure I finish the project!" and then never finish the project. Or, the project becomes fiscally unfeasible because they've mismanaged their money in other ways, other than paying for art "By Commission".

You just want to say "Oh, you still got the first design, so you weren't scammed" because you're guilty of engaging in that, and you'd make a lot less money if you were beholden to the project and all potential reworks of that piece as necessary to complete the project.

If you were responsible for that piece and all reworks of it until release of the game, you would never do Commission work again, because it wouldn't be very profitable, would it?

Which is, in essence, why the "scam" works. Tricking people who don't know any better into just "accepting" whatever you gave them, because "this is what you paid for", while knowing full well, that's not what they paid for. They paid for an asset for a specific part of their game. If it doesn't fit, but could be reworked to fit, then they paid for that service and you should give it for free... even if it's years later that they need it reworked.

The Commission is for a "service" not for "an image", since the images in video games are purpose based and not "looks based".

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

You're trying to compare two different kinds of product here. There's the kind you hang on your wall, which is fantastic for Commission... And then, there's the kind that has to serve a purpose, and if it doesn't serve that purpose, then it was a waste.

It's absolutely silly to Commission an image of a character for a video game to serve a specific purpose, unless that purpose is already 100% thought out, and "replacing art assets" is the last thing you need to do. Especially since whatever the artist makes may clash with whatever your game is or becomes later.

Heck, my game alone has gone through dozens of reworks.

Initially, it was just a game about letting players be a good guy or a bad guy and making both paths compelling. Then as I added and removed features, the game changed its purpose and overall aesthetic. If I had been Commissioning art from the beginning, I'd be looking at at least 4 complete artistic overhauls of the project. I'd be out a substantial amount of money for no finished product.

If my game has gone through that many reworks, I'd wager most games go through that many reworks as well. Changing art styles to fit new aesthetics and moods of the story and characters. Etcetera.

If I need to do that kind of overhaul, then it makes little sense to "Commission", since you need to rework pretty much everything. At which point, you're better off just hiring an artist for the duration of the project to create all the assets.

Though, let's be honest here... Indie Developers should be using "placeholder" artwork until the final stages of the game. Reason being, you'll save a lot of money in the long run that way. No need to hire a team until you're in "polish" stages then.

The reason AAA studios get their art teams in on the project very early is because they need assets for announcement trailers, gameplay demos, and it's part of the "creative process" in "fleshing out the game". Which means, Commission really wouldn't work at that point.

Funny enough, even if you choose to pay hourly rate it is not any less "scam-y" than one time fee if you ditch a design too. If you choose to ditch a design over and over again, the hourly rate increases and you are still paying more.

Please see above.

It is a common practice in the design industry to pay one time fee. Hourly rate works too. Whichever works better depends on the project, freelancer and client's preference.

It's actually not that common to pay a "one time fee" in the video game industry. It's actually more common to have a mix of "Contract Work" and "Full Time Employees". Both tend to be "hourly wages", with the main differences being who gets benefits and who gets overtime pay.

But, "Contract Work" is different than "Commission". So, it's best we don't conflate the two.

Especially since an artist hired "For Commission" will do their one image, typically once, and then go about their life. A "Contract Worker" will do the same job as many times as necessary so long as they are still under contract to do so. The scope of work for a "Contract Worker" is also much larger than that of "An Artist Hired For Commission".

So, we'd be comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe your problem is that you see "Commission Work" as the same thing is as "Contractors"? They're not the same, but I could see the argument you're making, make sense to you, if you think those two are the same thing.

You are moving goal posts again. It went from "this is how the entire video game industry works, everything else is stupid" to "that's Japanese market". You did that to gacha games debate too.

No, it's actually you who moved the goalposts. I work from a generalized point of view. The vast majority of the industry does not work like it does in Japan.

You are using Japan to "disprove the generalization".

Don't accuse me of doing the things you're doing. The vast majority of the video game industry does not work like it does in Japan. It just doesn't. Japan is an outlier. Japan even changes the way it designs games when it wants to appeal to "A worldwide audience" rather than "Just Japan".

That should tell you everything you need to know.

You tried the same thing with "Gacha". Trying to use an exception to the rule to "Disprove the rule". It's the same tired tactic people use when they can't debate the actual points. You see it all over the place.

"X is the general rule."
"Well, what about Y?! Why isn't the rule!"

I mean... how silly does that sound as an argument?

"Things fall towards the center of gravity."
"Not if there are magnets, they don't! Or Centrifugal Force!"

Cue Facepalm.

Argueing the exception to the rule is the very definition of "moving the goal posts". If you continue to try to argue that I'm "moving the goalposts" when it is you who are doing so, then you are knowingly engaging in Gaslighting Behavior. So, kindly, knock it off.

The problem here is that you are applying your limited personal experience and preference and assumed it works the same for everybody under all conditions.

I'm not. You'd know that if you'd read any of my posts. Instead, you've skimmed for things to reply to and then just replied to those things you wanted.

My "preferences" for doing business are a far cry DIFFERENT from how businesses actually operate. Because, frankly, I don't agree with how businesses currently do things.

But, I understand why they do things the way they do and the reasons they don't operate in other ways is because those other ways are frequently "very stupid" ways to operate. If those ways worked, they'd be the accepted norm, instead of what we currently have.

Likewise, here you are trying to "argue the exception" again. You just have "need to be right" syndrome. I proved you wrong, so your last resort is "but, but, but, but... EXCEPTION TO RULE!".

Yes, yes yes. There are exceptions to all rules. But, those exceptions tend to be the minority. For a reason. We should not be guiding people toward doing things in way that aims them "toward the exception", when it is clear the exception only works under fringe circumstances, which typically involve luck.

It works the vast majority of time for the vast majority of people. If you want to argue for "playing the odds", then just admit that's what you're doing. Say, "Well, it COULD work! If you believe in it enough! Or if you get lucky! Or if you 'manifest' hard enough!" and have done with it.

I don't deal in "low probability" anything. Most gamers don't. Except gamblers. There is something to be respected from successful gamblers, but not much to be respected from the vast majority of the failures who gambled. We see the failures as "losers" and "deadbeats" and "stupid beyond measure". But, we see those who have successfully gambled, not as lucky, but as "experts in their fields" and "someone to admire and aspire to be".

That's reality.

You COULD win big... but you most likely won't. The House Always Wins.

I, certainly, am not going to advocate for people engaging in behaviors that could wreck their lives or hinder their prosperous futures. I'm not that kind of person.

That's why I deal in Generalities. Because, generally, that's the way the world works.

If you post an opinion with more specific statements, like "I think hiring an artist full time for a single player game that doesn't rely on anime waifu to sell is a better idea as a western developer aiming for international audiences....(list your reasons here)", then no one will have a problem with it, knowing it is your personal opinion only.

That's not an opinion, actually... It's something you can prove with or without facts. An opinion is "I find that woman to be beautiful". Opinions cannot be proven correct or incorrect as they are 100% subjective.

If it can be proven right or wrong, then it's not an "opinion", but a "belief". Beliefs can be proven correct or incorrect all the time.

Especially since "facts" are a thing.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that "facts are bad" at this point, but whatever. Or trying to paint facts as opinions. Doing that is also a way to "Gaslight" people. Not really a fan of Gaslighting behavior...

I mean, even if your example provided, you could even list stats, figures, trends, and any other number of facts to prove the point. Which means... the statement could be factual. It could be a person "stating reality" rather than "expressing an opinion".

But, here you are, "That fact is obviously an opinion!"

I don't know how one can manage to make such a thing make sense in their head, but I never would be able to do that.

But you made a very generalized statment for everybody, with your very generalized business knowledge. That is when your opinion seems partially faulty when it is read by another reader with a very different life experience and point of view. How do I know you are talking about American markets mostly? How do I know you personally don't view gacha as games?

The world works in generalizations. The only people that hate generalizations are those the generalizations apply to. Namely, the truth hurt the person who is complaining about the generalization.

I also don't have "generalized business knowledge". I have actual business knowledge. I've been in charge of hiring and firing employees. I've been in charge of employee productivity. I've done QA Testing. I've dealt with contractors. I've read business contracts before. I'm managed workflow and efficiency to cut costs. I even once ran my own "business" as a teenager in school where I sold things I should sell (not drugs) to fellow classmates as well as "storage space" for illicit stuff. I've made my own money before. I've managed the money of others before.

I am not "an expert" in the field. I will never "make it rich" with the knowledge I have, unless someone decides I should be rich for whatever deal I make.

What I am, is just a shrewed business-person with experience in dealing with managing money. That's it.

If you know more about it than I do, then I will concede the floor to you. But, you don't. You keep getting upset at "generalizations" and now you're trying to equate "factual knowledge" to "different life experiences".

Yeah, maybe we did have different life experiences. Maybe I cared more about economics and making money than you did, so I spent time to learn those things. Maybe I cared more about saving money than you did, so I learned all the ways in which you mitigate risk and reduce spent cashflow. Maybe my experience is born of an actual desire to learn those things, where you have none. Maybe my life experience was that I came from a background of being just above the poverty line and so all the ways to make and keep money became important to me. Maybe that's not your "life experience" at all.

Your life experience seems to be that you never worried about money or being cheated of it before.

But, I still don't see why your "different life experience" means anything at all to the discussion at hand. It has simply affected whether or not you know anything on the subject at all, and that's it. I don't know anything that people couldn't learn if they had an interest to do so. It's not like the knowledge is "hidden" or anything. Heck, you'd have an EASIER time learning it than I did! I learned it all through trial and error! You can just google it!

As for the other questions:

I'm actually talking about "Western Markets", not necessarily "American" ones. Well, they're called "Western Markets", but they're really "Modern Global Markets". The homogenized worldview that industrial and technological based societies tend to revolve around.

This actually gets pretty off topic, but the short answer and explanation is that much of the world doesn't have a "distinct culture" anymore. Japan, Russia, China, maybe Australia, and a few other countries do. At least, if we're not talking "Third World Nations". But again, neither here nor there.

Speaking in terms of a generalization, a product is different to appeal to "The Global Market" rather than "only appeal to the local market". A movie made to appeal to an American Market will generally have a lot of pop culture references from America in it, a lot of Patriotism in it ('Murica, F Yeah!), heavy emphasis on "fighting the power in charge" or of "rugged individualism", and other such factors. Meanwhile, a movie made to appeal to a Japanese market has a lot of themes of "fitting into society", "overcoming depression", "contributing to society", "make everyone your friend, even if they are terrible people", and other such stuff. Then, you've got "Appeal to a global audience", which often doesn't carry any particular themes from any country what-so-ever, and typically engages just in the standard "resolve conflict" stuff. You tend to get cartoonishly evil villains in such works, so that your heroes can be beacons of purity and light, and there's very little "nuance" in any of the issues being discussed.

But, again, these are the generalizations of those markets. Exceptions exist. It is what it is.

As for whether or not you know if I view "Gacha as games", you could just ask. I, personally, see very few of them as games.

If we're talking something like "Genshin Impact", in which the Gacha portion is just something you can do and isn't necessary to the game what-so-ever, as you can play and beat the whole thing based upon your own skill... Then, yes, I view that as a game. It's a game with a Gacha Mechanic in it.

If we're talking something like "Raid Shadow Legends", then no, I don't view that as a game. Everything in it revolves around pulling the lever. No skill required. It has an "auto battle" feature, which is the game playing itself for you. I view this less as a "game" and more as a flashy lightshow.

But, I would make this same argument against certain brands of "Idle" games as well. Or even "walking simulators".

I do not view video games as "artsy fartsy" stuff. Games can contain art, in my opinion, but they are not art. Especially since they rarely make any useful or interesting commentary on society, philosophy, or anything else for that matter. They're usually more "political propaganda" than "art", in most cases.

But, that's just my viewpoint on it. Some people think of "politics" as "art", or "art is always political", so more power to them for that. I just don't agree. It's a different topic for a different day.

If you want my definition of a game, then I'll have to quote Angry Video Game Nerd here:

"Don't you think the most important part of a game is that YOU CAN PLAY IT!?"

It's simplistic and probably reductionist, but that's how I am on the subject. If I'm not an active participant and can't affect the outcomes, then it is not a "game" and is more akin to "a movie". Without agency, it's really not much of a game. Even in terms of "gambling", if I can affect the outcome, then it is a game. A measure of skill is involved. Otherwise, I'm just waiting for things to happen to me. At which point, may as well call being hit by a bus "a game", since we were just waiting for it to happen to me and I had no input what-so-ever on whether it did or not.

Yeah, that's hyperbole, but you get the point (or, I hope you do).

Then we ended up having to spend time going back and forth to clarify everything.

The need to "clarify" is just the result of "poor communication". If I have to clarify my position it is because of:
1. You weren't listening.
2. I wasn't clear.

The same can be said of if you have to clarify.

However, if you think someone else isn't being clear, you need to communicate that effectively. You need to say, "Hey, I don't understand what you mean, can you explain that?" or something similar.

But, you can usually tell someone isn't listening when they springboard off of what you said, ignored it entirely, and start "just trying to win" rather than "just trying to understand". A person "trying to win" isn't a person that is listening.

I've been patiently listening to you and trying to understand your viewpoint. I've also been soundly disproving the portions of it I think are irrelevent or nonsensical.

If you'd like to try again, I'll continue to be patient. I mean, I understand your point of view. You do Commissions. You want people to continue to come to you for Commissions. You don't like that I said such people who would Commission things for a game are doing things "wrong" and "in a not intelligent way". Probably because if they listened to me, you'd do less business. You seem to also be into this argument for purposes of "fame" and "notoriety", rather than "money", as most of your arguments have been about the fame and notoriety of other artsts rather than how much they made or what they were contracted under. You've also stepped off the beaten path a few times to try to argue for the exceptions.

I understand your viewpoint quite well. You were perfectly clear to me.

If I wasn't perfectly clear to you, then I need you to tell me in which way I wasn't clear. Which places do you need more explanation? I'll gladly be more clear for you. I'll explain in any way I need to in order to get you to understand. I'll explain it as many times as necessary.

But, if you're just skimming and looking for things to reply to... then the fault of "Clarity" lies with you, as you've decided to not listen.

I now know what are you really trying to say in your message. Your opinion probably applies to specific genre, specific culture, specific target audience, specific team size. Since you haven't show any financial proof that your idea is the best business practice for everybody under all conditions. Therefore it can't apply to every team as an universal rule.

Please stop trying to argue the exception. I've told you multiple times now that I work in generalizations. The general practices that work for the most people possible. The general rule. It tends to work for most situations and instances. That's why is a generalization.

Nothing works for everybody under all conditions, and if that is your standard for something being "a fact", then you're operating under pure delusion and nothing more. The only reason to hold such a viewpoint is because you want to be free to define reality as whatever is most convenient to you.

It is the height of narcissism and delusion.

I'd like end this lengthy discussion since I think all points are addressed.

You could've just said, "Let's just agree to disagree as I don't want to talk about this any more" at the top, and that's what you would've gotten.

Instead, this reads like, "I want to have my say, but shut down all conversation after it, so that I can't be refuted".

If you really don't want to talk about it anymore with me, then just say, "I don't want to discuss this with you anymore, and we can agree to disagree". Include nothing else with it.

There isn't a person on the planet that I wouldn't respect those words from.

In fact, in these forums, themselves, when someone has told me that outright, I have respected their wishes. Few people do this, however, which is a shame.

 

[123edc]

"X is the general rule."
"Well, what about Y?! Why isn't the rule!"

I mean... how silly does that sound as an argument?

often there's not just the one - singular - universal rule ...

that said, i do believe, that this topic is slightly drifting far, far away xD

 

[Htlaets]

Whether they contain the image or not does not matter in the copyright debate. Since the whole point of copyright law is to protect human creator's privilege to make money, what matters is whether the image is being used or not, not if it is stored.

I'd say that's more an occasional side effect. Copyright protection mostly protects corporate interests over individual creators, since they're the ones doing the vast majority of the enforcing of it and can most afford the lawyers, even when their use is solidly in SLAAP territory.

The images used to train the AI isn't being used to generate an image, it's being used to generate the AI's parameter, while chatGPT is certainly actively using the text.

If one falls afoul of copyright law so will the other.

All that aside the actual legal grounds of AI models depends on whether or not judges find the AI use-case to be transformative.

This is far from the first time the issue of scraping has been brought up in court. There were cases against google for scraping images for image search, google won. There were cases against google for scraping books to display book previews, google won.

As it stands its already been legally established that a work that includes AI images is copyrightable while the images themselves aren't since there's no human hand now it's really going to be a matter of where image scraping falls.

For that there's the Artists vs AI case (which, from what lawyers have said, is so poorly filed that it has no chance in hell) and the getty images vs stability AI case (Which, being a corporate entity vs another, is much more up in the air).

But, here's the thing about the Getty Images case, they're not suing on behalf of individuals. In fact, Getty Images have actually given images made by their creators away to AI companies that aren't Stability AI already without their permission (it should also be noted, the database used wasn't even scraped by stability AI, it was given to Stability AI by another company so Getty Images is likely suing the wrong entity regardless).

Basically, the way it would work if Getty Images gets their way is that image hosting sites would get the final say legally on whether images they host are used in a given AI database and they would sell a license for that.

Diffusion models can't generate new images without data. If you use someone else's copyrighted image, which is created by human to make money, then you generate a new image with it and use it to make money. You are the one making money and the creators get nothing.

But, that's the thing, though. That very thing happens all the time more directly than what AI image gen done: artists use references, those references are often copyrighted but... legally it falls under fair use. But they are making money by using other people's art as reference.

On top of that, artists also learn to draw by looking at copyrighted art.

But image gen isn't even using images as a direct reference, but rather to learn general art concepts.

Google image search cases also already established that this logic doesn't pan out legally. Copyright of images only cover the image or a likeness of that exact image/character, if what the AI spits out looks nothing like that image it won't fall under that.

Not everything you write is copyrightable – it must be sufficiently creative such that it deserves protection. For example, short phrases are rarely considered copyrightable nor are facts or functional pieces of a work. For source code, that means that anything that is very short or provides only functional capabilities would not be considered copyrightable.

So, that section of copyright law is also applied to art, you realize? It's why people cannot copyright a style. It's also what provides the legal gray area for fan art.

Let me clear up my position a bit. I don't think either ChatGPT or image generators will be found in violation of copyright law given precedence, I am merely discussing the ethical similarities. Because of past rulings on fair use and how the AI comic thing went my guess is that scraping will be considered fair use like using art as a reference is fair use.

This rule applies to even small snippets of image....if you want to use an icon from Shutterstock for your UI you need to pay. If you want to use a texture for a 3D model from a texture pack you need to pay. Even if you delete the source file of the icon or texture from your hard drive after the output, if your final UI or 3D model output used the copyrighted image, you need to pay.

Only if it used the exact image in the final product. If you download a texture for reference and then make a similar looking texture it doesn't fall under copyright. As stated above, reference is considered fair use.

Allllssssoooo:

For most collages, Factor (1), purpose and character of the use, will be the key factor. Typical collages, those that use many different materials juxtaposed in ways that create new visuals and meanings, will be considered transformative works. A work is “transformative” when the copyrighted material is “transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understanding.” In contrast, a work is not transformative if it merely uses the copyrighted material in the same way or with the same effect as the original work. For example, in one recent case, the defendant published “idea books” for scrapbooking. Some of the sample scrapbook pages used the plaintiff’s stickers combined with other decorative materials. The court found that this was not transformative. The stickers were used in the defendant’s books “to create a pictorial representation in which the stickers would not lose their individual identities.” Also, the plaintiff itself marketed the stickers for scrapbook use and published its own idea books, which also used the stickers as part of decorative collages.

If you're wondering how an image copyright claim works, fundamentally it's up to the judge's eye and presented evidence if it's similar enough. Some collages that use copyrighted works directly are transformative enough to pass, some aren't, basically.

But, in an AI image generator case it wouldn't even be considered a collage since, unless that's the users intention, it will generate an entirely different image, which mean the judge looking for a very high level of sameness wouldn't find it.

The case for ChatGPT is quite different. If a novelist sells a novel, they are selling the entire story, not snippets of paragraph or chapters or plot summary. So ChatGPT learning how to write a story from another person's story does not affect a novelist's profit that much, if at all.

Putting aside that even in its nascent state ChatGPT is indeed being used to write articles and scripts (poorly for the former, in the cases of the latter it's been sanity-checked well enough for me not to notice until the person mentioned it): copyright does not establish that the person who has a copyright can make a profit.

Profit is irrelevant in whether something is fair use or not. Image AI's legal basis is actually slightly better than ChatGPT because of how indirect the knowledge it has is. Which is to say, if you think image AI should be illegal, so too should ChatGPT.

So if I ask ChatGPT "please create a photo editing program like adobe Photoshop for me" then they can write code for an entire program, then it will likely have copyright problems as Adobe lose money.

No, that wouldn't be the case. It has nothing to do with whether or not Adobe loses money from a knock-off, it would be about percentage similarity of the code.

If I ask ChatGPT to generate snippets of code for a function, it is probably safe. Before ChatGPT exists snippets of code wasn't copyrighted to begin with. Unlike a small icon sold by another artist to be used as an asset.

Depends on how big/unique the snippet is. If it can be proven that someone copy and pasted entire functions from another program a copyright claim can be made, the thing is that's very difficult to prove unless the person copying was so foolish as to include the exact same variable names and comments.

But, regardless, that falls under provability more than "it's actually legal to copy and paste code from a program", because it technically would still fall under copyright violation, it's just that no one could possibly prove it.

You see, what matters is how business model works, not how AI generates output. Art asset business works differently from novel and code, that is why the debate is different.

Legally business models have nothing to do with copyright law.

you still need real news reporters for the content, since ChatGPT doesn't have access to the newest info in the world.

Can and has been done in several mid-sized tech/market news orgs. ChatGPT can be fed in recent data and then make an article of it and it is being used for that purpose. That being said it caused a lot of mistakes because of where it's at.

And what I'm saying is that the majority of programming question is not about this single function for a single purpose. You could write an app that the whole company at its stake but you wondered "how do I concatenate string again?"

A smaller plurality of art is drawn as part of a larger project as well. In either case, you can get ChatGPT to write you more than one function and have them work together to make a full program even if you're not a programmer. I'm not sure why we're stuck on this circular point

While it might be true, I still need to know the context of what replacing what. If you mean "programmers", perhaps we have a different definition of "programmers". Or you meant something else?

What I mean is the people keeping an eye on AI programming would have to be programmers to sanity/maliciousness check the code it spits out, but the staff necessary to do that would be far less than otherwise.

... such as this definition.
It is not my definition of a programmer.

Right, so, in order to do that type of thing you'd have to have someone who knows how to code. It might be a stupid simple coding task that anyone else could do with sufficient googling, but nonetheless man hours of people with computer science degrees are indeed used for that type of stuff. And, man hours means employment.

I would say, the skill or talent of a programmer is innate. They are not learning the ropes from mundane tasks. They learn the ropes from a complex set of requirements guided by a technical lead, or autodidact. I would say this is a "natural selection" so I wouldn't get paired with crap peers who don't know how to program and only follow instructions from programming courses, to be honest. I might sound like an elitist, but it is what it is.

What I mean by learning the ropes I mean learning their team's practices. But, either way, the "elite" of programmers will indeed be the last ones in the room, so you're not wrong there, but that's also true for artists.

Before AI is a thing, programmers already have automation on their hands. A set of frameworks to make their life easier. Or in-house framework. I even make my own tool to simplify my mundane task. AI would help them more.

Right, but that's the stage image generation is at as well. Those AI's can mock up quick concept art, color in drawings, seamlessly upres, remove backgrounds, etc. The stage where image generation is at is no "replace artist" level, imo.

But that's where it's at now, and I repeatedly emphasize that. Eventually it will go from being able to do the task clunkily, with obvious mistakes and mediocrity to being able to do the task better than the majority.

It is already taken care of by AI.

Not all of it or the majority by any stretch yet.

There's already machine learning to analyze company data. But who's going to use the AI again? the programmers. The CEO of the company or the director won't be touching it. They have more important matters to attend to. Again, a-wannabe programmers who only write HTML tags won't likely be the ones operating the AI. The competition for programmers is already fierce, and AI won't even make a difference.

Right, so, for starters, those wannabe programmers who are currently employed won't be employed and people who do menial programming tasks for a living will be unemployed. Then the next lowest tier of programmer will be replaced, then the next.

I feel like this is confusing the current state of AI with the long term effects of its growth.

I heard about the AI dungeon, but I don't know much about it.
Is it paid or do they get any monetary gain at all such as donations?

... Actually, never mind. That question probably contributes nothing. Tho, I'm still curious.

AI dungeon has/had tiers, there's a free tier that can access a "dumber" AI for a certain number of prompts a month iiirc and a couple of paid tiers to access the most powerful AI.

Thaaaaatt being said let's just say they had to lobotomize their own model because what they used to train it was a user generated choose your own adventure database that HEAVILY included NSFL stuff.

Like it was all fun and games when Count Grey the evil vampire and other characters/factions would randomly show up in peoples generations, but then you realize where Count Grey came from and... Well, if you want to look into you can.

If they could train the AI using their own drawing, and exclusively for them (no one else can't use it), then it might be fine.

You can't really make a program that does just that and you know it. And, as I stated previously even in this post, the output from AI has already been declared legal, at most if you put a legal framework there you'd be unable to prove whose images an output was trained on unless the user went pretty far out of their way to copy a specific image.

Image editing is already a thing.

Been for a long time, but it was hard enough that photographic/video evidence was still fine. I remember the fuss about photoshop making it impossible to distinguish fakes from reals, it did certainly complicate things.

But, now, AI image and voice gen can be used so that anyone can make a talking, walking version of anyone else in a video.

I don't know about the other text work (EDIT: Actually, Tamina nailed it well). And if you keep saying "diffusion models contain no images", I would also be repeating "these diffusion models won't exist unless it's been trained from existing images",

Again, circular. ChatGPT wouldn't exist without the novels and code it is trained on, either.

Also, artists themselves probably wouldn't be able to do art as we know it if they never saw a picture.

so why not train other legal images you have permission for? It would also create the "same" diffusion models.

For starters, the legal debate hasn't been established one way or the other. And, if AI image gen training is found to be illegal, then ChatGPT would be found to be illegal on the same grounds.

This is my view on the whole thing:

You've got two possible bad scenarios.

A: current situation, anyone can do anything.

The plus is the same as the minus. AI creation is in the hands of everyone, its development is in the hands of everyone. It's not a corporate thing. The benefits and minuses are available for everyone.

And "everyone" can be pretty damn horrible.

B: Gigantic Corps hire people to make training material for their own personal models that they might sell. AI still replaces artists, but now it's monopolized by companies. They might let people pay for their legal models, they might keep it private.

B is actually where Stability AI gets its money already. It makes models for companies.

Neither possible future scenario is good for artists long term in my mind. We're in a choose your dystopia stage of technological development and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

Copyrighted code is usually kept hidden and encrypted.

Far from all of it, there's a lot of code that by its very use has to be kept open for their users.

I thought about this silly scenario too. I mean, if they want to train humans with 6 fingers, it's more power to them.

Ha. Thing is, we're actually already moving past the 6 finger stage with controlnet so you could make a model of proper images. Advancements happen fast.

If you look at the texture on the left, it is being transformed into a logo by a human. And it is pretty much unrecognizable in the final output. I absolutely can't tell that texture is part of the logo by looking at it.

It's not unrecognizable. It can provably be attributed to a single image. You cannot do the same for an AI generated image. And, to repeat above, collages are often found to be legal even with copyrighted work literally in them if the whole work is transformative enough.

 

[Iron_Brew]

If the game "plays itself", I don't consider it a video game. A game typically involves "a measure of skill". At least to me.

Are you really "playing a game" if you're just yanking on a lever and wishing to get what you want? May as well call "prayer" a "game" at that point.

In either case, this is subject for a different topic if you wish to discuss it.

I don't hold this as "an opinion", but rather a mirror of facts and logic to justify the viewpoint.

An "opinion" would be, "I think these flowers are beautiful". Opinions cannot be proven correct or incorrect as they are subjective personal assessments. As such, they're unassailable.

So, youre desire to argue "opinion" already tells everyone involved that it is not "an opinion", but rather something provable through facts and logic.

So, if you're interested in debating facts and logic...

You need a new thread.

Otherwise, this is a moot point (as it always was).

Also, nobody argued it wasn't a "business model". Not sure where you came up with that, but you sure do like erecting Straw Men in those fields to topple.

It would help if you didn't pull what I say out of context to erect those Straw Men. Which... is funny for you to do since you accused me of "moving the goalposts" when you didn't even know what the goalposts were, since you skim what I read, pull things I write out of context, and then make arguments on things I never talked about.



Yes, it depends. Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Not sure why it took you so long to do so... but I'm glad you finally arrived at this point.



From a business standpoint, IE: How the industry runs, yes, very stupid. If you're talking about outliers, then they're just that... OUTLIERS.

Exceptions do not disprove rules. They are merely exceptions. Often, those exceptions are like comparing apples to oranges, so not very useful in terms of debate in the slightest.

You'd have to tell me which games have operated PURELY on "commissions" and then we could dig into those financial records to find out.

I've already mentioned that I'd be willing to change my mind on thius subject. In fact, that's what you're quoting. You are quoting the moment where I said, "I don't know, we'd have to look to see if they were successful". Then, instead of going, "Oh! I can provide proof that they were, here it is!", you went, "You didn't do research on this thing that I'm supposedly an expert on, and I'm not willing to spend the time to prove you wrong, so instead I'll just try to play 'gotcha'!".

I gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong. To change my mind.

Instead, you went, "If you don't know, then how can you claim they're stupid!?" like a petulant child. I mean, if YOU DON'T KNOW if they're successful, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THEY'RE NOT STUPID?

It works both ways, my man. You can't make an argument and then not expect the same argument to be turned back against you.

The smartest move here, if you didn't have that knowledge either would just be to say, "Yeah, I don't know either, and it's not worth getting upset about.". Or, if you did have the knowledge, to just be like, "Hey, look up this game, here's where the records of what the game made are, and here's how much the contract was for the Commissions was".

I suspect the reason you didn't go into "here's why you're wrong" is because you did a quick google search and couldn't find a way to prove that the "Artists" were even on "Commission" for the game to begin with.

Probably, because the video game industry doesn't hire "by Commission" for most projects, for the reasons I stated. They hire the artists on as "part of the art team".

Aside from like... fringe things like your "gacha" games, where all that matters is "it's a pretty girl".

But, that's neither here nor there. We're not discussing "Gacha Games". You can make a separate topic for discussing that if you so desire. I've no interest in a minority of video games that isn't "the norm". I operate on generalities, like most people.



Except...



Now it's a waste of money to have not hired them on to do the job. Because, now you've blown money on something you'll never use, in a project that doesn't need it.

But, even this scenario is "an exception". You're talking about doing little Indie Games like we have here in these forums. You're not talking about the Video Game industry at all.

Even then, in the context of "Indie Games", it's a rare scenario that you'd "only need one thing".

I have no artistic talent what-so-ever. If I wanted artwork for anything, I'd have to buy it, or hire someone at all. So, my options are "use the RTP", "Buy DLC", "Commission Artwork", or "Get free artwork off the internet".

If I hire an artist, there's less "art mismatch" (or rather, what we call... keeping the same aesthetic), then it's smarter than paying for every individual piece of artwork they make, or rework they have to make.

It makes no sense to hire an artist for a single image or thing when it has the potential to "mismatch" against all the other artwork you have. It's jarring and immersion breaking to have artwork clash like that.

Heck, even if your argument here, you're talking about having A HIRED EMPLOYEE do your artwork for you, rather than Commission it again. EVEN YOU ADMIT that it's better to HAVE SOMEONE HIRED ON by virtue of your admitted business practice.

I'm also not sure why you'd Commission someone for "something minor" either. That seems like a gross waste of money. Especially since if it's minor, you could likely cut it and not worry about it... or you could work around it... or you could just have your existing art team deal with it.

Basically, your argument here could use some clarifying. What is it you consider "minor" that you'd "pay for Commission" for, and what would you "have your team" work on?

I'd just hire the team and have that team do all the work. Cheaper, less headaches, less aesthetic clash, easier to monitor workload and productivity, easier to get your money's worth. You also don't have to hire a lawyer for an individual contract. Most game companies must agree with this sentiment, because that's generally how they work.



No, it is a scam. If I pay you for a design, and that design isn't what I want it to be... Well, now you either have to rework that design for me, without new payment... or you'll decide you need new payment for a rework of that design.

Either I'm scamming you, or you're scamming me.

What if I need you to rework that piece 10 or more times as the artwork on the project evolves? Or, as the themes do? Are you REALLY going to rework my single commissioned piece that many times?

I doubt it.

That's why it's a scam.

Financially irresponsible. It's why only young children and the economically ignorant pay for Commission like this. They're all "Let me get all my assets up front, 'cause that will ensure I finish the project!" and then never finish the project. Or, the project becomes fiscally unfeasible because they've mismanaged their money in other ways, other than paying for art "By Commission".

You just want to say "Oh, you still got the first design, so you weren't scammed" because you're guilty of engaging in that, and you'd make a lot less money if you were beholden to the project and all potential reworks of that piece as necessary to complete the project.

If you were responsible for that piece and all reworks of it until release of the game, you would never do Commission work again, because it wouldn't be very profitable, would it?

Which is, in essence, why the "scam" works. Tricking people who don't know any better into just "accepting" whatever you gave them, because "this is what you paid for", while knowing full well, that's not what they paid for. They paid for an asset for a specific part of their game. If it doesn't fit, but could be reworked to fit, then they paid for that service and you should give it for free... even if it's years later that they need it reworked.

The Commission is for a "service" not for "an image", since the images in video games are purpose based and not "looks based".

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

You're trying to compare two different kinds of product here. There's the kind you hang on your wall, which is fantastic for Commission... And then, there's the kind that has to serve a purpose, and if it doesn't serve that purpose, then it was a waste.

It's absolutely silly to Commission an image of a character for a video game to serve a specific purpose, unless that purpose is already 100% thought out, and "replacing art assets" is the last thing you need to do. Especially since whatever the artist makes may clash with whatever your game is or becomes later.

Heck, my game alone has gone through dozens of reworks.

Initially, it was just a game about letting players be a good guy or a bad guy and making both paths compelling. Then as I added and removed features, the game changed its purpose and overall aesthetic. If I had been Commissioning art from the beginning, I'd be looking at at least 4 complete artistic overhauls of the project. I'd be out a substantial amount of money for no finished product.

If my game has gone through that many reworks, I'd wager most games go through that many reworks as well. Changing art styles to fit new aesthetics and moods of the story and characters. Etcetera.

If I need to do that kind of overhaul, then it makes little sense to "Commission", since you need to rework pretty much everything. At which point, you're better off just hiring an artist for the duration of the project to create all the assets.

Though, let's be honest here... Indie Developers should be using "placeholder" artwork until the final stages of the game. Reason being, you'll save a lot of money in the long run that way. No need to hire a team until you're in "polish" stages then.

The reason AAA studios get their art teams in on the project very early is because they need assets for announcement trailers, gameplay demos, and it's part of the "creative process" in "fleshing out the game". Which means, Commission really wouldn't work at that point.



Please see above.



It's actually not that common to pay a "one time fee" in the video game industry. It's actually more common to have a mix of "Contract Work" and "Full Time Employees". Both tend to be "hourly wages", with the main differences being who gets benefits and who gets overtime pay.

But, "Contract Work" is different than "Commission". So, it's best we don't conflate the two.

Especially since an artist hired "For Commission" will do their one image, typically once, and then go about their life. A "Contract Worker" will do the same job as many times as necessary so long as they are still under contract to do so. The scope of work for a "Contract Worker" is also much larger than that of "An Artist Hired For Commission".

So, we'd be comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe your problem is that you see "Commission Work" as the same thing is as "Contractors"? They're not the same, but I could see the argument you're making, make sense to you, if you think those two are the same thing.



No, it's actually you who moved the goalposts. I work from a generalized point of view. The vast majority of the industry does not work like it does in Japan.

You are using Japan to "disprove the generalization".

Don't accuse me of doing the things you're doing. The vast majority of the video game industry does not work like it does in Japan. It just doesn't. Japan is an outlier. Japan even changes the way it designs games when it wants to appeal to "A worldwide audience" rather than "Just Japan".

That should tell you everything you need to know.

You tried the same thing with "Gacha". Trying to use an exception to the rule to "Disprove the rule". It's the same tired tactic people use when they can't debate the actual points. You see it all over the place.

"X is the general rule."
"Well, what about Y?! Why isn't the rule!"

I mean... how silly does that sound as an argument?

"Things fall towards the center of gravity."
"Not if there are magnets, they don't! Or Centrifugal Force!"

Cue Facepalm.

Argueing the exception to the rule is the very definition of "moving the goal posts". If you continue to try to argue that I'm "moving the goalposts" when it is you who are doing so, then you are knowingly engaging in Gaslighting Behavior. So, kindly, knock it off.



I'm not. You'd know that if you'd read any of my posts. Instead, you've skimmed for things to reply to and then just replied to those things you wanted.

My "preferences" for doing business are a far cry DIFFERENT from how businesses actually operate. Because, frankly, I don't agree with how businesses currently do things.

But, I understand why they do things the way they do and the reasons they don't operate in other ways is because those other ways are frequently "very stupid" ways to operate. If those ways worked, they'd be the accepted norm, instead of what we currently have.

Likewise, here you are trying to "argue the exception" again. You just have "need to be right" syndrome. I proved you wrong, so your last resort is "but, but, but, but... EXCEPTION TO RULE!".

Yes, yes yes. There are exceptions to all rules. But, those exceptions tend to be the minority. For a reason. We should not be guiding people toward doing things in way that aims them "toward the exception", when it is clear the exception only works under fringe circumstances, which typically involve luck.

It works the vast majority of time for the vast majority of people. If you want to argue for "playing the odds", then just admit that's what you're doing. Say, "Well, it COULD work! If you believe in it enough! Or if you get lucky! Or if you 'manifest' hard enough!" and have done with it.

I don't deal in "low probability" anything. Most gamers don't. Except gamblers. There is something to be respected from successful gamblers, but not much to be respected from the vast majority of the failures who gambled. We see the failures as "losers" and "deadbeats" and "stupid beyond measure". But, we see those who have successfully gambled, not as lucky, but as "experts in their fields" and "someone to admire and aspire to be".

That's reality.

You COULD win big... but you most likely won't. The House Always Wins.

I, certainly, am not going to advocate for people engaging in behaviors that could wreck their lives or hinder their prosperous futures. I'm not that kind of person.

That's why I deal in Generalities. Because, generally, that's the way the world works.



That's not an opinion, actually... It's something you can prove with or without facts. An opinion is "I find that woman to be beautiful". Opinions cannot be proven correct or incorrect as they are 100% subjective.

If it can be proven right or wrong, then it's not an "opinion", but a "belief". Beliefs can be proven correct or incorrect all the time.

Especially since "facts" are a thing.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that "facts are bad" at this point, but whatever. Or trying to paint facts as opinions. Doing that is also a way to "Gaslight" people. Not really a fan of Gaslighting behavior...

I mean, even if your example provided, you could even list stats, figures, trends, and any other number of facts to prove the point. Which means... the statement could be factual. It could be a person "stating reality" rather than "expressing an opinion".

But, here you are, "That fact is obviously an opinion!"

I don't know how one can manage to make such a thing make sense in their head, but I never would be able to do that.



The world works in generalizations. The only people that hate generalizations are those the generalizations apply to. Namely, the truth hurt the person who is complaining about the generalization.

I also don't have "generalized business knowledge". I have actual business knowledge. I've been in charge of hiring and firing employees. I've been in charge of employee productivity. I've done QA Testing. I've dealt with contractors. I've read business contracts before. I'm managed workflow and efficiency to cut costs. I even once ran my own "business" as a teenager in school where I sold things I should sell (not drugs) to fellow classmates as well as "storage space" for illicit stuff. I've made my own money before. I've managed the money of others before.

I am not "an expert" in the field. I will never "make it rich" with the knowledge I have, unless someone decides I should be rich for whatever deal I make.

What I am, is just a shrewed business-person with experience in dealing with managing money. That's it.

If you know more about it than I do, then I will concede the floor to you. But, you don't. You keep getting upset at "generalizations" and now you're trying to equate "factual knowledge" to "different life experiences".

Yeah, maybe we did have different life experiences. Maybe I cared more about economics and making money than you did, so I spent time to learn those things. Maybe I cared more about saving money than you did, so I learned all the ways in which you mitigate risk and reduce spent cashflow. Maybe my experience is born of an actual desire to learn those things, where you have none. Maybe my life experience was that I came from a background of being just above the poverty line and so all the ways to make and keep money became important to me. Maybe that's not your "life experience" at all.

Your life experience seems to be that you never worried about money or being cheated of it before.

But, I still don't see why your "different life experience" means anything at all to the discussion at hand. It has simply affected whether or not you know anything on the subject at all, and that's it. I don't know anything that people couldn't learn if they had an interest to do so. It's not like the knowledge is "hidden" or anything. Heck, you'd have an EASIER time learning it than I did! I learned it all through trial and error! You can just google it!

As for the other questions:

I'm actually talking about "Western Markets", not necessarily "American" ones. Well, they're called "Western Markets", but they're really "Modern Global Markets". The homogenized worldview that industrial and technological based societies tend to revolve around.

This actually gets pretty off topic, but the short answer and explanation is that much of the world doesn't have a "distinct culture" anymore. Japan, Russia, China, maybe Australia, and a few other countries do. At least, if we're not talking "Third World Nations". But again, neither here nor there.

Speaking in terms of a generalization, a product is different to appeal to "The Global Market" rather than "only appeal to the local market". A movie made to appeal to an American Market will generally have a lot of pop culture references from America in it, a lot of Patriotism in it ('Murica, F Yeah!), heavy emphasis on "fighting the power in charge" or of "rugged individualism", and other such factors. Meanwhile, a movie made to appeal to a Japanese market has a lot of themes of "fitting into society", "overcoming depression", "contributing to society", "make everyone your friend, even if they are terrible people", and other such stuff. Then, you've got "Appeal to a global audience", which often doesn't carry any particular themes from any country what-so-ever, and typically engages just in the standard "resolve conflict" stuff. You tend to get cartoonishly evil villains in such works, so that your heroes can be beacons of purity and light, and there's very little "nuance" in any of the issues being discussed.

But, again, these are the generalizations of those markets. Exceptions exist. It is what it is.

As for whether or not you know if I view "Gacha as games", you could just ask. I, personally, see very few of them as games.

If we're talking something like "Genshin Impact", in which the Gacha portion is just something you can do and isn't necessary to the game what-so-ever, as you can play and beat the whole thing based upon your own skill... Then, yes, I view that as a game. It's a game with a Gacha Mechanic in it.

If we're talking something like "Raid Shadow Legends", then no, I don't view that as a game. Everything in it revolves around pulling the lever. No skill required. It has an "auto battle" feature, which is the game playing itself for you. I view this less as a "game" and more as a flashy lightshow.

But, I would make this same argument against certain brands of "Idle" games as well. Or even "walking simulators".

I do not view video games as "artsy fartsy" stuff. Games can contain art, in my opinion, but they are not art. Especially since they rarely make any useful or interesting commentary on society, philosophy, or anything else for that matter. They're usually more "political propaganda" than "art", in most cases.

But, that's just my viewpoint on it. Some people think of "politics" as "art", or "art is always political", so more power to them for that. I just don't agree. It's a different topic for a different day.

If you want my definition of a game, then I'll have to quote Angry Video Game Nerd here:

"Don't you think the most important part of a game is that YOU CAN PLAY IT!?"

It's simplistic and probably reductionist, but that's how I am on the subject. If I'm not an active participant and can't affect the outcomes, then it is not a "game" and is more akin to "a movie". Without agency, it's really not much of a game. Even in terms of "gambling", if I can affect the outcome, then it is a game. A measure of skill is involved. Otherwise, I'm just waiting for things to happen to me. At which point, may as well call being hit by a bus "a game", since we were just waiting for it to happen to me and I had no input what-so-ever on whether it did or not.

Yeah, that's hyperbole, but you get the point (or, I hope you do).



The need to "clarify" is just the result of "poor communication". If I have to clarify my position it is because of:
1. You weren't listening.
2. I wasn't clear.

The same can be said of if you have to clarify.

However, if you think someone else isn't being clear, you need to communicate that effectively. You need to say, "Hey, I don't understand what you mean, can you explain that?" or something similar.

But, you can usually tell someone isn't listening when they springboard off of what you said, ignored it entirely, and start "just trying to win" rather than "just trying to understand". A person "trying to win" isn't a person that is listening.

I've been patiently listening to you and trying to understand your viewpoint. I've also been soundly disproving the portions of it I think are irrelevent or nonsensical.

If you'd like to try again, I'll continue to be patient. I mean, I understand your point of view. You do Commissions. You want people to continue to come to you for Commissions. You don't like that I said such people who would Commission things for a game are doing things "wrong" and "in a not intelligent way". Probably because if they listened to me, you'd do less business. You seem to also be into this argument for purposes of "fame" and "notoriety", rather than "money", as most of your arguments have been about the fame and notoriety of other artsts rather than how much they made or what they were contracted under. You've also stepped off the beaten path a few times to try to argue for the exceptions.

I understand your viewpoint quite well. You were perfectly clear to me.

If I wasn't perfectly clear to you, then I need you to tell me in which way I wasn't clear. Which places do you need more explanation? I'll gladly be more clear for you. I'll explain in any way I need to in order to get you to understand. I'll explain it as many times as necessary.

But, if you're just skimming and looking for things to reply to... then the fault of "Clarity" lies with you, as you've decided to not listen.



Please stop trying to argue the exception. I've told you multiple times now that I work in generalizations. The general practices that work for the most people possible. The general rule. It tends to work for most situations and instances. That's why is a generalization.

Nothing works for everybody under all conditions, and if that is your standard for something being "a fact", then you're operating under pure delusion and nothing more. The only reason to hold such a viewpoint is because you want to be free to define reality as whatever is most convenient to you.

It is the height of narcissism and delusion.



You could've just said, "Let's just agree to disagree as I don't want to talk about this any more" at the top, and that's what you would've gotten.

Instead, this reads like, "I want to have my say, but shut down all conversation after it, so that I can't be refuted".

If you really don't want to talk about it anymore with me, then just say, "I don't want to discuss this with you anymore, and we can agree to disagree". Include nothing else with it.

There isn't a person on the planet that I wouldn't respect those words from.

In fact, in these forums, themselves, when someone has told me that outright, I have respected their wishes. Few people do this, however, which is a shame.

This feels like it's getting way too heated, man. No offense, but it feels like you're getting outta line here. Also like, this is 4494 words - that's like half a dissertation's worth of Internet Argument. Feels like you might wanna take a step back and examine if it's worth continuing at that rate?

 

[Sword_of_Dusk]

This feels like it's getting way too heated, man. No offense, but it feels like you're getting outta line here. Also like, this is 4494 words - that's like half a dissertation's worth of Internet Argument. Feels like you might wanna take a step back and examine if it's worth continuing at that rate?

Sometimes being as concise as possible can improve an argument. I think that whole thing up there is a good example of going way too hard on something.

 

[Tamina]

But, that's the thing, though. That very thing happens all the time more directly than what AI image gen done: artists use references, those references are often copyrighted but... legally it falls under fair use. But they are making money by using other people's art as reference.

On top of that, artists also learn to draw by looking at copyrighted art.

This is a commonly seen excuse from pro-AI camp, but they completely ignored the goal of copyright law to begin with. Which is to protect human
privilege, not AI's. So the time and money investment spent on building an asset to generate money is not wasted for nothing.

It doesn't matter if that human is an individual or big company in this case. Even if big company ended up getting more benefit this way, they are still human so their privilege should be protected by law.

Therefore, it makes no sense to protect the copyright of AI. And most of the lawyers and US copyright office agrees on this matter, that copyright doesn't belong to AI.

The US Copyright Office says an AI can’t copyright its art

No human authorship means no copyright protection.

www.theverge.com

So the only person who is benefitting from the current system are:
1) AI service providers charging for a service fee.
2) AI users who generates image for commercial use.

But both 1) and 2) also aren't the one doing art themselves. They are receiving the output and making money, they aren't learning art from references at all. So the excuse of "but human uses reference to make money too!!!" is completely gone here. It is never human artists v.s AI, but human artists v.s people monetize using AI without paying other people(human artists) who has partial contribution in the final output.

This is easy to fix though. AI company charge a service fee from commercial users, but personal license remain free. Then AI company uses the service fee to pay licensing fee to artists willing to provide art for training. If commercial users like the art style of one particular artist, they can pay for commercial license to train the AI and monetize it.

Using AI for technology advancement and creating personal art for fun should remain free of course. This way no one is losing privileges, except commercial AI art users with an increased licensing cost. But since they are making money to begin with, it is only fair for them to pay for it.

If AI users using other people's art to train AI for commercial use is allowed without needing to pay for anything, pretty soon we will have a market full of artists refusing to post anything high quality online. Or they'll all choose to opt out. Or they'll heavily watermark everything....then future AI users will have nothing to train AI anymore except AI art and old art, why would anyone want that?

No matter how I see it, the current model isn't sustainable from business point of view. I think it is better for the industry to quickly implement a new business model.

But image gen isn't even using images as a direct reference, but rather to learn general art concepts.

AI doesn't understand "art concepts", they only understand noise, pixel, color.....those aren't art concepts, or at least not all of it.

Art concept is more like, movement, life experiences, emotions, principles of design, logic, self interpretation....

I've used AI, I am pretty confident that AI 100% doesn't understand what art concept really is, since AI never cared about any of the above when I gave them prompt, and they have great difficulty learning such concept only from images. They don't have a mind.

And if I guide them with img2img or controlnet and such, it will be my art concept doing the work, not theirs.

However we are entering the terriority of philosophical debate, so you are free to have a different opinion on this matter. I would like to discuss more on the business side of things.

Also, artists themselves probably wouldn't be able to do art if they never saw a picture.

This is really not true. Who is the human who created first art/picture in the world? It has to be somebody right?



This is the first art in the world, created by a human who has never seen any pictures before. Creating art is clearly an inherent ability from human brain. Which proves that human brain is different from diffusion model.

If "creative ability" is what is being protected by law, it will be difficult to prove that diffusion model has such ability if they can't create without references. Because human brain 100% can.

So.....if human brain functions differently from diffusion model, and they have different privileges under the law.....

I personally find "human artists are the same as AI!" excuse very inconvincing in every way.

To be fair, I am personally fine with new technology replacing jobs, or "art" being available to everybody. I am also fine with people use AI to generate their DnD art, nsfw art, anime waifu, even if commission artists lose business as a result, since those are personal art, not commercial.

I am only against the idea of using something to make money, but not paying people who has contributed in the process. This sounds greedy to me and I think this is not how the business should work.

 

[HexMozart88]

Guys, this is *ridiculous*. Really think about how you're spending your time here. You're spending *hours* insulting each other and arguing about logistics, to the point where I don't even understand what side any of you are on anymore. I'm reporting this thread. We need at least a few days to step away from this.

 

[Htlaets]

This is a commonly seen excuse from pro-AI camp, but they completely ignored the goal of copyright law to begin with. Which is to protect human
privilege, not AI's. So the time and money investment spent on building an asset to generate money is not wasted for nothing.

Camp whatever, I don't really care about that.

A copyright for an image is for a specific image, if you cannot prove an image is exactly like that image you generally cannot enforce a copyright on an image. For example, the only reason the foundation of the getty images case has some chance of going somewhere is because the AI can consistently

It doesn't matter if that human is an individual or big company in this case. Even if big company ended up getting more benefit this way, they are still human so their privilege should be protected by law.

I don't view companies as people personally, but that's me.

Therefore, it makes no sense to protect the copyright of AI. And most of the lawyers and US copyright office agrees on this matter, that copyright doesn't belong to AI.

I have cited the case that finished testing this repeatedly in my previous posts, to you included. The comic copyright case ended with the comic in question, characters, arrangement of frames having a copyright and the AI images not, which is to say the comic was ruled legal and copyrightable.

But, here's a link:

AI-Generated Comic Book ‘Zarya of the Dawn’ Keeps Copyright but Key Images Excluded

Protection can’t be granted to individual images created with artificial intelligence software, the U.S. Copyright Office said.

www.wsj.com

The U.S. Copyright Office supported a copyright registration for a comic book created with the help of an artificial intelligence program, but said that individual AI-generated images couldn’t be granted protection, the latest development in a closely watched case that has become a barometer for how AI art might be treated in the eyes of the law.

The Copyright Office’s decision noted that Mx. Kashtanova wrote the text and arranged and edited the images into their final form. But it ruled that what it called the unpredictable output of Midjourney meant that Mx. Kashtanova didn’t create the individual images in “Zarya of the Dawn.”

Which is to say, this point is utterly irrelevant to the topic of whether or not AI images can be sued for copyright infringement. On the contrary, it's a point that it doesn't.

So the only person who is benefitting from the current system are:
1) AI service providers charging for a service fee.
2) AI users who generates image for commercial use.

For 2. I haven't really seen people charging for AI generated images. At all. I don't think that's an actual thing. Maybe as part of a larger work is your point? But then it falls under the category of that comic that was copyrighted despite the individual images in it being ruled not copyrightable, it's also sorta relevant to point out on this site that if someone uses the RTP from RPG Maker, they also don't hold a copyright to the images, but they can still copyright their work.

I've seen some free packs of AI generated images and that's it.

But both 1) and 2) also aren't the one doing art themselves.

The only relevance this has for copyright purposes is the ability to copyright the image itself.

They are receiving the output and making money, they aren't learning art from references at all.

Again, I don't think that I've seen this pipeline of generating an image and going directly to selling it (if it exists I doubt it has worthwhile revenue), and I'm not sure it'll exist so long as image gen models are free and open source.
If you want to argue lost business it'd be from people who have some fan art they want to see and shell out for a commission on, but even then I doubt that's at a critical mass.


So the excuse of "but human uses reference to make money too!!!" is completely gone here. It is never human artists v.s AI, but human artists v.s people monetize using AI without paying other people(human artists) who has partial contribution in the final output.

AI doesn't understand "art concepts", they only understand noise, pixel, color.....those aren't art concepts, or at least not all of it.

They understand noise, pixel, color, patterns, what arrangements of those relate to what type of object, and how multiple parameters input from the user can intersect, which are concepts, and they are certainly a part of art concepts.

It's the very basics of the basics of it, of course, things start somewhere. It outsources creative direction to the prompter.

This is really not true. Who is the human who created first art/picture in the world? It has to be somebody right?

Seems you caught the edit I made of "art as we know it". You can't honestly say that artists don't benefit from all the references and techniques they have available today or that cave art compares.

If "creative ability" is what is being protected by law, it will be difficult to prove that diffusion model has such ability if they can't create without references. Because human brain 100% can.

Human brain has eyes. The world is a reference. The cave painter could see a boar and drew it.

AI does not have eyes. The question is more can a person who was blind their entire life create art as we know it? I think they could, mind, but not like a person that can see

 

[hiddenone]

That’s enough, essay-length posts are excessive and it seems like people are talking at/past others instead of really discussing. Time to focus your energy on your games.

I’m closing this for now.