Skip Navigation
37 comments

  • even when used to assist human creativity

    That's a bit harsh. AI can be a great tool for assisting creativity.

    finished by a human to be covered under copyright

    That's so much worse, wtf? airbrushed slop is fine but using it as inspiration, which good luck proving that, isn't?

    This whole AI thing is fucking cooked.

    • It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:

      Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

      • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
      • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
      • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
      • Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
      • Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
      • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
      • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
      • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.

      Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.

    • I don't see why this stuff even matters. Like say they fully AI generate a loading screen for their game, and therefore they don't have copyright on it. That doesn't stop them from selling the game, it would only stop them from suing someone copying that specific part of the game for their own purposes. But such a person would have no way of knowing whether the image was fully AI generated or not, so even though in actuality they couldn't be sued successfully, they will still be taking the risk. And there isn't much reason to anyway that I can think of.

      So why would a company like Activision even give a shit?

      • I'm not sure exactly what you mean by why this stuff matters, but the stuff that you'd be generating with AI for a game wouldn't be a loading screen or something - it would be assets. Character models, weapons, buildings, textures, voices, that's the kind of stuff that companies want to generate with AI. Right now, you can buy stock assets to use, and that's where all the garbage asset flips come from, but companies want to replace employees with software that makes their own assets for them for cheap. Replace the people who make games with software that spits out gacha products. But if they aren't protected under copyright, then any asset flipper can use your main character - taking the model right from your AAA game - and throw it into their 99-cent asset flip scam, and you can't do anything about it.

        I believe Steam has the policy on AI that they do both because of public opinion about the use of AI (and the way it's being used to steal from creators) and because AI generated games tend to fall into the same category of outright scams that NFT games do, and games containing NFTs are straight up banned from Steam.

        Edit: Going back and reading through the article, I see that they were straight up putting in AI generated images into the game as skins and loading screens and stuff. These also fall under the asset flip thing, especially if they're so obvious that they have six fingers like the zombie Santa. The same goes for their social media promotional material. You can just straight up use CoD's ads for your own game and they can't do anything about it.

        People are upset by the use of it because of the poor quality, and, as I said, these companies want to replace the people who make games with software that churns out slop to consume. They think of gamers as pigs at a trough and developers as leeches stealing their hard earned profits.

37 comments