Gencon fires one of its most Woke areas, while Hasbro is going more open on AI.
Probably firing one so can make room for something even worse.
I think the financial impacts of driving away everyone but a tiny minority is beginning to correct the woke over correction. Also, as usual, the people claiming to be champions of virtue are tripping over their feet of clay.
I like they way they fire the woke councils AFTER the event.
From the video i saw i find it hard to believe they lost any money at the GENCon event, it looked like a couple hundred thousand people were there.
these are all distractions. real problems are out there, and no one knows what to do or the morons are actively trying to sink the usa. the fed rate increase this week will be the deathknell. unless nato manages to launch deep strike missiles at russia, at which time enjoy the mushroom clouds, hopefully kiev will be first and we will get to see the videos.
hasbro states they are using AI on an "investor' phone call. Of course cox is going to say they embrace AI, he thinks investors want to hear that. in reality we all know they are using AI, as they fired all thier creators. WHO else is making all that stuff? keebler elves? haitians?
IMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).
Artists would do well in learning to use it as such, make it generate pieces you'll later use as reference or will correct.
For writing... It's not in a really usable way beyond very short stuff.
Programming... It might be more useful here but still has the same problem, it will re-use the same stuff over and over again, I think it would be very useful to trouble-shoot but not much beyond it.
Developing RPGs/RPG stuff... It's great for helping you create random tables, but you have to learn it's limitations and work around those: You have to ask it for ONE column at the time and you have to learn how to ask it so it doesn't repeat itself and doesn't include shit you don't want.
For example, ask it for common American names, it will give you Hispanic, Anglo, etc names... But you were trying for a wild west setting, so you need to learn how to ask it.
Adventures... Maybe the seed for one, something YOU'LL have to fix and flesh out, it's terribly repetitive, because it can only use what it has access to.
In short it lacks creativity, talent and the capacity to innovate.
Now, if you have the machine then you can install one and learn to train it for whatever use you want to give it, then it's way better for that use case, but it still has the same limitations.
WotC and other corporations, had to scream they'll never use it, because they bent the knee to the woke mafia, and they hate it.
I bet it's the same corporations driving much of the hate, because they NEED for it to be regulated so the plebs can't use it to compete with them.
Quote from: Omega on September 17, 2024, 06:15:47 AMProbably firing one so can make room for something even worse.
That's my guess as well. Just having birthing queer POC panelists isn't enough... they need to be disabled and diseased (physically and mentally) too. Bonus points if they're here illegally.
ChatGPT knows about me.
Who is DocJones?
ChatGPT said:
DocJones is a user on RPG.net known for their controversial posts, particularly in political threads. They have received multiple infractions, including thread bans and a two-week suspension for trolling and other violations. This has led to significant moderation actions against them, indicating a pattern of contentious interactions within the community. For more detailed discussions about DocJones and their interactions on the forum, you can visit RPG.net's moderation and infraction threads.
Hilarious.
Quote from: DocJones on September 17, 2024, 05:15:26 PMChatGPT knows about me.
ChatGPT thinks I'm a character from Mistborn. Meanwhile all the image generators think I'm a hot brunette.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).
It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.
QuoteRatman_tf is a content creator known for their work in the gaming community, particularly on platforms like Twitch and YouTube. They often create humorous or entertaining content, possibly focusing on games like Team Fortress 2, where the "tf" in their name might come from. If you have a specific aspect of Ratman_tf in mind, let me know!"
I've never put any content on Twitch, and I don't play Team Fortress 2 at all.
Nobody tell it where the tf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFLm8bpAN8) comes from! :D
Quote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).
It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.
It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.
As long as Gencon still has a "BIPOC lounge" (this disgusting blight first appeared in 2022, and in 2023 it got this article https://indianapolisrecorder.com/gen-con-bipoc-lounge-offers-safe-space-for-minority-gamers/ , and you can find people discussing it in 2024 so I assumed it was present there as well), I feel it will be far too bought in on identity politics. The elimination of one totally pozzed and dishonest nonevent is still a big deal, because, as the video points out, it's unbelievable to see them bend even slightly on anything- in previous years you'd see them refuse to take any L, no matter how high the price was.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on September 18, 2024, 03:41:56 AMMeanwhile all the image generators think I'm a hot brunette.
To be fair, there are
far worse things to be.
Quote from: Thornhammer on September 19, 2024, 07:34:06 PMQuote from: Anon Adderlan on September 18, 2024, 03:41:56 AMMeanwhile all the image generators think I'm a hot brunette.
To be fair, there are far worse things to be.
Reminds me of an old joke:
What's the mating call of a blonde? "I'm sooooo drunk!"
What's the mating call of a brunette? "All the blondes have left..."
What's the mating call of a redhead? "Next."
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AMQuote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).
It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.
It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.
You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.
Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AMQuote from: Omega on September 18, 2024, 03:24:10 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on September 17, 2024, 01:23:25 PMIMHO, what we call AI (it's not intelligence at all) is a tool, animation software has been using something like it for a long while (tweening).
It is barely a tool. Its a combination of ELIZA and a webcrawler/dataminer.
It's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.
You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.
Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.
But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 20, 2024, 05:34:42 AMQuote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on September 19, 2024, 11:13:10 AMIt's a pretty tremendous tool, if you learn how to use it, and it will only get more useful as time goes by.
You mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.
Except that's not what it does, any more than if you made a new image based on the artistic style of Boris Vallejo, he couldn't sue you for that either.
But hey, I understand. The monks who worked in the scriptoriums tried to illegalize the printing press too. They failed, because the printing press was much more useful than the monks were.
The interior of someone's head has never been subject to copyright. However, it is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.
A non-computerized parallel would be if someone published a book called "How to Draw like Boris Vallejo" and included in it a bunch of traced, broken-down, and analyzed versions of Vallejo's works. Someone who learned from the book might create a painting that doesn't violate Vallejo's copyright, but the book itself
does violate Vallejo's copyright.
I think copyright has been made over-broad and especially lasts insanely too long, but I still support the principle of patent and copyright to incentivize creation.
The idea that machine learning trained on something is copyright violation is spread by people who have no idea how either of those things work.
If they scream loudly enough, maybe their politicians will falsely extend it to machine generated things though- they'll still be wrong, but now they'll have government force on their side.
AI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.
Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.
Quote from: Omega on September 19, 2024, 08:26:47 PMYou mean as it steals more and more works of real people to pass off as its own? Artists and writers are already working out countermeasures to fight these things.
You mean the countermeasures which don't actually work and creating media which isn't worth copying?
Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.
Unless of course the resulting images are considered
transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's
entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case
all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 20, 2024, 08:26:32 PMAI is so huge that there's no way any government will try to stop it.
Well wait, that's not quite true. Certainly many governments could be stupid enough to try to stop it. But that would quickly get swept away as they realized that banning AI would put them at such a huge technological disadvantage (like if someone had banned the horseless carriage). Any such law would either be repealed or ignored fairly quickly.
The European Union has entered the chat...
There's a reason the EU can't produce technological innovation nor compete with those who do.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on September 20, 2024, 08:47:10 PMQuote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.
Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.
Yes, if an AI is trained only on work that is wholly owned by the corporation doing the training, then there is no copyright issue. Similarly there is no issue if it is only trained on public domain works.
However, note that under copyright law
transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.
If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.
I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.
https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists
Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMQuote from: Anon Adderlan on September 20, 2024, 08:47:10 PMQuote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 01:43:23 PMit is illegal to create unauthorized derivative images -- and an AI trained on a subject's work is effectively filled with such images.
Unless of course the resulting images are considered transformative, which becomes more likely the more the algorithm is trained/queried on the artists own work, until the point it's entirely trained on such like in #Hasbro's case, in which case all generated content is authorized and owned by the original copyright holder.
Yes, if an AI is trained only on work that is wholly owned by the corporation doing the training, then there is no copyright issue. Similarly there is no issue if it is only trained on public domain works.
However, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.
If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.
I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.
https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists
Unless 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.
Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.
Else using art in the public domain to train it is forgery.
Sadly the judges that will decide over this are ignorant about art and tech, so you ludites will probably help the megacorporations get what they want so us plebs won't be able to use the tool to compete with them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AMQuote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.
If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.
I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.
https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists
Unless 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.
Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.
Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.
(https://i.imgur.com/HOVt51l.jpeg)
The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.
A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.
:D Hah! How am I as Gen X not more messed up with HR Pufnstuf and McDonaldland friends as my childhood memories! Or maybe all those psychedelic nightmares helped me endure the horrors of life? Perhaps the children need the Willy Wonka boat ride of terror more than we think? Perhaps terrified children getting over their nightmares is crucial to a resilient and competent adulthood?
Eh, who am I kidding, it was probably all the drugs and no deeper than that! :)
Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 01:43:30 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AMQuote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.
If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.
I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.
https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists
Unless 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.
Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.
Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.
(https://i.imgur.com/HOVt51l.jpeg)
The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.
A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.
Doin 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 makes way more sense now.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2024, 05:35:28 PMQuote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 01:43:30 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on September 21, 2024, 12:43:41 AMQuote from: jhkim on September 20, 2024, 10:29:35 PMHowever, note that under copyright law transformative is an artistic determination, not an algorithmic one. A parody can be transformative even if the content is almost identical. Conversely, even stealing a few bars of notes in a song is potentially a copyright violation.
If the AI is capable of outputting copyright-violating works if prompted correctly, that is evidence that there is copyright-violating data inside the AI. Algorithmically changing the data into a different form doesn't necessarily mean that it is artistically transformative.
I think the example of the Greg Rutkowski LoRA is a good example. Greg Rutkowski was opposed to AI use, and then someone created a model trained specifically to mimic his art.
https://decrypt.co/150575/greg-rutkowski-removed-from-stable-diffusion-but-brought-back-by-ai-artists
Unless 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.
Imitating someone's style isn't copyright violation, nor is it a crime unless you want to pass it as an original by said someone.
Imitating someone closely can absolutely be an copyright infringement if there is substantial similarity. i.e. If you paint the same subject in a similar style, it can be an infringement even if you change some details. A landmark case on this was Sid & Marty Krofft vs McDonald's, where they successfully sued over McDonald's imitation of their H.R. Puff n Stuff characters.
(https://i.imgur.com/HOVt51l.jpeg)
The McDonaldland characters are not exact copies, but they were still found to be copyright infringing.
A large fraction of copyright cases are not about 100% exact copies, but rather about imitating too closely.
Doin 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.
What, jhkim leaving out crucial details that might invalidate his example? I'm shocked!
AI and copyright are really two different issues, anyway. If copyright had been maintained at 28 years (14+14), I might be more sympathetic to arguments about copying "style." But just about every part of copyright law has been manipulated by politicians bought by big media (*cough*DISNEY*cough*), and if we can't reduce the terms to something reasonable, then being very strict about what is considered infringement is the only rational way forward. The idea that we would benefit not only from corporations locking away properties for two full lifetimes, in addition to restricting the ability of small entities to generate media without paying the toll to the media giants, is beyond ludicrous. LLMs can be a great equalizer, which is why the media giants are both against them and investing heavily in them at the same time...
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.
Quote from: jhkim on September 21, 2024, 11:38:54 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: yabaziou on September 24, 2024, 01:52:08 PMSo 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 !?
Quote from: yabaziou on September 24, 2024, 01:52:08 PMHonestly, buy the Rpgpundit RPG stuff, at least, he cares about the TTRPG hobby and the quality of its products.
I'm not sure if I'm missing tone here, yabaziou, but RPGPundit has made it clear that he supports use of AI art - which you seem to be negatively portraying here.
That doesn't mean I oppose buying his stuff. I've bought five of his games.
Also, to clarify, I support use of AI under conditions - namely that the AI creator has legal rights to the works it is trained on.
Why would you, willingly, misunderstand my tone, since my words were written in mirthless sarcasm, for my contempt of the way which, WotC/Hasbro and its thoughtless sycophants behave, is quite clear ?
IA is a tool.
IA is legal.
WotC/Hasbro leadership, management and creative designers, have made know that non woke people are not welcome in their general location and that you have to believe the woke drivel to enjoy their D&D.
I am not woke, I don't, also, enjoy WotC/Hasbro D&D past behavior, which I attribute to greed and apathy from the average consumer.
Greed is not a good thing for me, and if people want to enjoy D&D like games, I would rather they buy the RPGPundit books than the WotC/Hasbro books.
Am I being more understable for you ?
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.
Apparently it is hard. It's getting harder and harder to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I don't want a glut of AI assisted product competing for my attention.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 24, 2024, 03:36:02 PMQuote 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.
Apparently it is hard. It's getting harder and harder to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I don't want a glut of AI assisted product competing for my attention.
That's probably because we're still in the early phases of AI and content curators haven't figured out how to deal with it yet beyond allowing it/disallowing it. Come up with a good Seal-of-Approval/Editor's-Choice mechanism and you'd have the best of both worlds.