Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 11:38:54 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2024, 05:35:28 PMDoin a quick google, it's notable that McDonald's actively worked with Kroft in developing the characters and setting for their campaign.

QuoteEarly in 1970, the advertising agency Needham, Harper and Steers contacted Marty Krofft asking if the Kroffts would be willing to work with Needham on an advertising campaign for the McDonald's hamburger chain based on the H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Various telephone conversations followed to discuss the concept, and on 31 August 1970 Needham sent a letter saying it was going ahead, but soon after Needham telephoned to say the campaign had been cancelled. Needham had in fact won the contract for the campaign, hired former employees of the Kroffts to work on the sets and costumes, and hired the person who supplied the H.R. Pufnstuf voices to make the voices for several of the McDonaldland commercials, the first of which was broadcast in January 1971.[2]
...
The court also noted that Needham clearly had access to Pufnstuf, since their representatives had visited the Krofft's headquarters to discuss engineering and design work for the commercials even after they had been awarded the McDonald's contract and had decided not to use the Kroffts.

So this wasn't just a case of McDonalds copying HR Puffinstuff, but actively working with them until the contract was cancelled.

That is true - but the ruling was about copyright infringement, not contract dispute. The reply implies that if only McDonald's had ripped off the Krofts without even trying to pay them, then they'd have been safe from lawsuit. That is not my understanding of the case. Though note that the infringement wasn't about just the sample images above - it was about the broader content of the live-action ad campaign. Still, the point is that just changing details wasn't enough to negate substantial similarity.

The reason that it was a famous landmark case is because it told corporations that they couldn't just closely imitate artists without paying them.


If you want a case of imitation without prior contract, there's the 1976 lawsuit over George Harrison's first solo single, "My Sweet Lord". It was sued for similarity to The Chiffon's "He's So Fine". In that case, even though it was widely agreed that he didn't consciously copy the song and had no contact with the Chiffons, it was an infringement because he subconsciously copied out music.

I'm sure a copyright lawyer could think of more relevant cases, but the point is that the standard is "substantial similarity" -- and non-exact copies can still be sued as infringement.

So, by your standards IF I were to draw a wholly original piece in a theme/genre that let's say Frazetta never touched by my style resembles his (or I'm trying to make it so) then I'm committing a crime.

Because we're not talking about drawing the same or making something close to what he did, but wholly original works, either by me or by an AI.

Let's say the piece is "American Gothic" but in inks and in the style of Frazetta, So, who am I "stealing" from according to you?

I'll do you one better, what if the prompt were to include the names of more than one artist? Is the output copyright infringement from all of them?

It's your ludite irrational hatred of any new tech speaking me thinks.

Yeah, it's pretty much the law.  Style is not protected, you only can get a copyright on the actual expression of the work (by a human.)  The US Copyright Office does have an AI policy.  In the UK, generated works get a 10 year copyright for the human that created it.

There is trade mark and trade dress, but they are also their own defined thing as it specifically relates to product and service identity.  And, there are also fraud laws if you try to pass your work off as coming from another.

Having said that, anyone can sue and it is up to the system to determine the merits of the case.

Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 11:38:54 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2024, 05:35:28 PMDoin a quick google, it's notable that McDonald's actively worked with Kroft in developing the characters and setting for their campaign.

QuoteEarly in 1970, the advertising agency Needham, Harper and Steers contacted Marty Krofft asking if the Kroffts would be willing to work with Needham on an advertising campaign for the McDonald's hamburger chain based on the H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Various telephone conversations followed to discuss the concept, and on 31 August 1970 Needham sent a letter saying it was going ahead, but soon after Needham telephoned to say the campaign had been cancelled. Needham had in fact won the contract for the campaign, hired former employees of the Kroffts to work on the sets and costumes, and hired the person who supplied the H.R. Pufnstuf voices to make the voices for several of the McDonaldland commercials, the first of which was broadcast in January 1971.[2]
...
The court also noted that Needham clearly had access to Pufnstuf, since their representatives had visited the Krofft's headquarters to discuss engineering and design work for the commercials even after they had been awarded the McDonald's contract and had decided not to use the Kroffts.

So this wasn't just a case of McDonalds copying HR Puffinstuff, but actively working with them until the contract was cancelled.

That is true - but the ruling was about copyright infringement, not contract dispute. The reply implies that if only McDonald's had ripped off the Krofts without even trying to pay them, then they'd have been safe from lawsuit. That is not my understanding of the case. Though note that the infringement wasn't about just the sample images above - it was about the broader content of the live-action ad campaign.

Do you think Kroft would have engaged in the lawsuit if McDonald's had followed through with the advertising contract? (I ask this absurd question to illustrate how this particular example is intertwined with two parties actively working together contaminates the copyright issue, not the contract issue itself.)

QuoteStill, the point is that just changing details wasn't enough to negate substantial similarity.

The reason that it was a famous landmark case is because it told corporations that they couldn't just closely imitate artists without paying them.


If you want a case of imitation without prior contract, there's the 1976 lawsuit over George Harrison's first solo single, "My Sweet Lord". It was sued for similarity to The Chiffon's "He's So Fine". In that case, even though it was widely agreed that he didn't consciously copy the song and had no contact with the Chiffons, it was an infringement because he subconsciously copied out music.

I'm sure a copyright lawyer could think of more relevant cases, but the point is that the standard is "substantial similarity" -- and non-exact copies can still be sued as infringement.

Hum. Another example with some contamination.

QuoteHarrison's counsel contended that he had drawn inspiration from "Oh Happy Day" and that Mack's composition was also derived from that hymn.

After reconvening in September 1976, the court found that Harrison had subconsciously copied "He's So Fine", since he admitted to having been aware of the Chiffons' recording.[138] Owen said in his conclusion to the proceedings:[139]

It looks to me like a case where both songs were inspired by a hymn, and Harrison was sunk not because of the similairity to "He's So Fine", but by his admission that he was aware of it.

I don't mind AI as an enhancer to the art and text work flow.  I do have my hesitation against its use as a replacement for work or claiming something as your own without effort.  So, I'm in line with the US Copyright Office's AI policies.

Oh, I couldn't resist.  ChatGPT did a fair write up for me.  Some of the products are a bit dated, but that's expected.  There's no way that the LLM would know about my recent stuff with Fabula Ultima, Riftbreakers, or Ruthless Heavens, Boundless Fate.

ChatGPT said, "Todd Zircher is an indie game designer and developer known for his contributions to role-playing games (RPGs) and solo game tools. He runs Tangent Zero, a site where he shares various gaming utilities and projects. Zircher has developed a range of gaming aids, including tools for generating non-player characters (NPCs) and utilities for solo or GM-less play, like No GM's Sky, a framework for exploration games.

One of his notable works is The Trouble with Rose, a GM-less, narrative-driven tabletop game. He is also involved in open-source projects like A Cast of Thousands, a character generator for the Star Wars Saga Edition RPG. His work spans multiple genres and systems, providing resources for tabletop RPG enthusiasts.

You can explore his projects on Tangent Zero."

I don't know if this is a repudiation of wokeism as much as it's a simple repudiation of failure.  The Writer's Symposium was packed with authors with almost no sales or audience and no drawing power.  General con attendees and sci-fi/fantasy readers didn't know or care who these people were.  Practically no one was going to these panels.  I have seen accounts of panels with more people on the panel than attending it.  They have just realized that packing the symposium with authors who have no significant sales or audience and no name recognition or drawing power is a recipe for failure.  Their problem is that the sort of authors that the liberal white women who run organizations like SFWA like to invite to symposiums are generally not the kind of authors who sell books or draw people to attend.  For example, liberal white women love the idea of Afrofuturism while the general sci-fi readership is mostly apathetic.  On the other hand, liberal white women think military sci-fi is problematic so there probably wasn't a single military sci-fi author participating despite that sub-genre's massive popularity.

The clout chasers that made themselves in charge of this thing must have known that the line-up of writers would lead to low attendance.  The obvious explanation is that they just didn't give a shit about the success of the symposium.  They only cared about exercising clout and promoting their own careers.  That one of them tried to make the symposium's official social media account into a promotional account for her own books tends to bear this out.           

This is a bit weird.

Who is yosemitemike?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

YosemiteMike is a popular YouTuber known for his engaging videos about the outdoors, camping, and exploring national parks, particularly Yosemite. He shares tips, experiences, and beautiful scenery, making it fun for viewers who love nature and adventure. If you have any specific questions about him or his content, feel free to ask!

I can't find a youtube channel by that name.  The only thing I am finding is a playlist I did for a game where we played a band.

With WotC going all in on AI, I'm wondering how DriveThruRPG will respond. They have some anti AI requirements for products to be posted there for sale. Surely WotC will get a pass because of the volume of their sales.

Quote from: yosemitemike on September 23, 2024, 11:24:02 AMThis is a bit weird.

Who is yosemitemike?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

YosemiteMike is a popular YouTuber known for his engaging videos about the outdoors, camping, and exploring national parks, particularly Yosemite. He shares tips, experiences, and beautiful scenery, making it fun for viewers who love nature and adventure. If you have any specific questions about him or his content, feel free to ask!

I can't find a youtube channel by that name.  The only thing I am finding is a playlist I did for a game where we played a band.

It seems to extrapolate (badly) on the username. I don't think it's even looking anything up beyond it's own database.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 22, 2024, 12:18:53 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 11:38:54 PMThat is true - but the ruling was about copyright infringement, not contract dispute. The reply implies that if only McDonald's had ripped off the Krofts without even trying to pay them, then they'd have been safe from lawsuit. That is not my understanding of the case. Though note that the infringement wasn't about just the sample images above - it was about the broader content of the live-action ad campaign. Still, the point is that just changing details wasn't enough to negate substantial similarity.

The reason that it was a famous landmark case is because it told corporations that they couldn't just closely imitate artists without paying them.


If you want a case of imitation without prior contract, there's the 1976 lawsuit over George Harrison's first solo single, "My Sweet Lord". It was sued for similarity to The Chiffon's "He's So Fine". In that case, even though it was widely agreed that he didn't consciously copy the song and had no contact with the Chiffons, it was an infringement because he subconsciously copied out music.

I'm sure a copyright lawyer could think of more relevant cases, but the point is that the standard is "substantial similarity" -- and non-exact copies can still be sued as infringement.

So, by your standards IF I were to draw a wholly original piece in a theme/genre that let's say Frazetta never touched by my style resembles his (or I'm trying to make it so) then I'm committing a crime.

Because we're not talking about drawing the same or making something close to what he did, but wholly original works, either by me or by an AI.

Let's say the piece is "American Gothic" but in inks and in the style of Frazetta, So, who am I "stealing" from according to you?

I'll do you one better, what if the prompt were to include the names of more than one artist? Is the output copyright infringement from all of them?

No, the new work needs to have "substantial similarity" to the prior work in order to be a copyright violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

I was disagreeing with your earlier claim, when you said:

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AMUnless the AI can output an exact copy (without a direct input of the work) of an artist's creation you can't claim it's copyright violation.

Something can be a copyright violation if it is "substantially similar" to a prior work. This includes style as well as subject and artistic choices.

It isn't just subject choice. i.e. If an artist draws a picture of two unicorns, that doesn't mean that no one else can draw two unicorns. But if another artists copies enough distinctiveness from the original work - in subject, background, style, etc. - then it could go over the line to being substantially similar.

The question is, can an AI produce works that are "substantially similar". To take a specific example - let's say the Greg Rutkowski LoRA mentioned earlier that is trained specifically to reproduce that artist. Could it create paintings that are copyright-infringing because they are substantially similar to his real paintings?

Quote from: yosemitemike on September 23, 2024, 11:24:02 AMThis is a bit weird.

Who is yosemitemike?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

YosemiteMike is a popular YouTuber known for his engaging videos about the outdoors, camping, and exploring national parks, particularly Yosemite. He shares tips, experiences, and beautiful scenery, making it fun for viewers who love nature and adventure. If you have any specific questions about him or his content, feel free to ask!

I can't find a youtube channel by that name.  The only thing I am finding is a playlist I did for a game where we played a band.

That's hilarious! People regurgitating the stupid shit they get from AI is what will lead us fully into idiocracy.

I think we can make a distinction between checking on what AI is saying and shouting it out as gospel.  :-)

As a consumer, I want more AI, because AI = more options. AI allows good creators to put out more work faster. It's a force multiplier. If it leads to an explosion of inferior products, then the answer is better curation, not prohibition. Give consumers better tools to navigate the sludge and locate the good stuff. It's not hard.

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:37:47 AMAs a consumer, I want more AI, because AI = more options. AI allows good creators to put out more work faster. It's a force multiplier. If it leads to an explosion of inferior products, then the answer is better curation, not prohibition. Give consumers better tools to navigate the sludge and locate the good stuff. It's not hard.

Buy this guy a Pint. He gets it.

Quote from: zircher on September 24, 2024, 10:22:07 AMI think we can make a distinction between checking on what AI is saying and shouting it out as gospel.  :-)

I have every faith that we have the capability to make such a distinction. I have less faith in people actually doing it.

So a soulless corporation (WotC/Hasbro) made a rational decision to maximinize its gains, for it is a profit driven legal entity, which benefits from a weird monopolity (too big too fail, it seems), by remplacing illustrators (not artists) by soulless tools of exploitation of the works of paid for hired freelancers !?
I am so schocked to my core that a rapacious business operative, in a niche market, which it clearly dominates, had the audacity of making money motivated decisions !!!
Enough mirthless sarcasm, the leadership of WotC/Hasbro, who are not gamers and do not have to be, and theirs pet soullful saints woke petty tyrants had made, long ago, known their contempt for their main target, men with disposable time and money, and people still hope that this embarassing situation will sort it out by itself ?
WotC/Hasbro do not went you ? Then they do not your precious time and hard won money !
There are so much more interesting materials, some free, some with a price tag, that every TTRPG hobbyist, who has been singled out by the woke cronies of WotC/Hasbro, should have enough personal sovereignty and said : enough, this relationship is abusive so I am out and best luck with yours endeavors, I want no part of it !
I am not judging anyone who buys WotC/Hasbro, because my money, my choices, but I think people should understand that supporting soulless and greedy legal entities might not be emotionaly healthy, but whatever ...
Honestly, buy the Rpgpundit RPG stuff, at least, he cares about the TTRPG hobby and the quality of its products.