!!! Steam's NEW ban on AI generated content

[delete]

The game "Night Run" https://steamcommunity.com/app/2288760 has been in development for past year, a cutting edge futuristic art piece using some AI generated art, blocked in release by Steam.

The game was denied release because Steam's new policy against "AI Generated Content"

Anyone else know of a game being blocked because of this policy? This new policy seems extremely shortsighted and biased ridden.

Remove the policy Steam!

[Boblin the Goblin]

If the creator of the game can prove they generated the art assets using artwork they personally own, Steam will allow it.

If they can't, Steam says no and that's good.

[delete]

If the output artwork is original then they own it. I fail to see the issue. It's only an issue if it infringes on someone else work. That's how copyright works. Even non-ai artwork can infringe on other people's work.

[JVC]

Originally posted by delete:

If the output artwork is original then they own it. I fail to see the issue. It's only an issue if it infringes on someone else work. That's how copyright works. Even non-ai artwork can infringe on other people's work.

If any of the components are copyrighted by someone else, it is still copyrighted by the original copyright owner. If you draw Mickey Mouse, no matter how good the drawing is and how original you think it is, copyright belongs to Disney because the character is still under copyright.

Same here, the dev has to prove that what he claims is original is in fact just that and not derived from someone else's work.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

The policy isn't new.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by delete:

If the output artwork is original then they own it. I fail to see the issue. It's only an issue if it infringes on someone else work. That's how copyright works. Even non-ai artwork can infringe on other people's work.

It's up to the game dev to show the content is ok.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by delete:

If the output artwork is original then they own it. I fail to see the issue. It's only an issue if it infringes on someone else work. That's how copyright works. Even non-ai artwork can infringe on other people's work.

Nope.

If they use works they don't own, then the output created from those works by a machine are not theirs. Especially if there isn't illicit permission from the artists to do so.

Oh, also fun fact, according to law, anything that is generated by a machine cannot be copyrighted by the one who fed the data into the machine. Since the machine is the one who created the work and machines can't copyright, generated AI art is uncopyrightable.

[delete]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

If they use works they don't own, then the output created from those works by a machine are not theirs. Especially if there isn't permission from the artists to do so.

Oh, also fun fact, according to law, anything that is generated by a machine cannot be copyrighted by the one who fed the data into the machine. Since the machine is the one who created the work and machines can't copyright, generated AI art is uncopyrightable.

By "illicit" , did you mean "explicit"? Are you a copyright attorney? Any references to your claims would be helpful.

Originally posted by JVC:

If any of the components are copyrighted by someone else, it is still copyrighted by the original copyright owner. If you draw Mickey Mouse, no matter how good the drawing is and how original you think it is, copyright belongs to Disney because the character is still under copyright.

This is simply not true. lol.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by delete:

Originally posted by SlowMango:

If they use works they don't own, then the output created from those works by a machine are not theirs. Especially if there isn't permission from the artists to do so.

Oh, also fun fact, according to law, anything that is generated by a machine cannot be copyrighted by the one who fed the data into the machine. Since the machine is the one who created the work and machines can't copyright, generated AI art is uncopyrightable.

By "illicit" , did you mean "explicit"? Are you a copyright attorney? Any references to your claims would be helpful.

Originally posted by JVC:

If any of the components are copyrighted by someone else, it is still copyrighted by the original copyright owner. If you draw Mickey Mouse, no matter how good the drawing is and how original you think it is, copyright belongs to Disney because the character is still under copyright.

This is simply not true. lol.

Here you go.[www.reuters.com]

Again, it's good Steam doesn't allow this trash on the site.

Another one[www.artnews.com] where the copyright office went back and told a comic creator that the only thing eligible for copyright is the writing and 'original elements' that weren't machine created. So the artwork wouldn't be..

[Aachen]

Originally posted by delete:

By "illicit" , did you mean "explicit"? Are you a copyright attorney? Any references to your claims would be helpful ....

…. Are you?

Derivatives can lack sufficient originality and be infringing.

[delete]

The policy is clearly biased.

To me, is despicable this platform allows thousands of erotic cartoon clones, yet wont publish an obvious original work of art.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by delete:

The policy is clearly biased.

To me, is despicable this platform allows thousands of erotic cartoon clones, yet wont publish an obvious original work of art.

The difference between those 'clones' and the AI 'art' is those clones had someone draw the art, not tweak prompts until they got what they wanted.

So it is biased. It's biased towards actual creative input.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by delete:

The policy is clearly biased.

To me, is despicable this platform allows thousands of erotic cartoon clones, yet wont publish an obvious original work of art.

You say it's "obvious", but is it? Do you actually know the communication between the game dev and Valve regarding why the game isn't on there anymore?

[delete]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Here you go.[www.reuters.com]

This article cites "works without human input." That was specific to the patent claim and not relevant to this conversation. These pieces are the result of human input.

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Another one[www.artnews.com] where the copyright office went back and told a comic creator that the only thing eligible for copyright is the writing and 'original elements' that weren't machine created. So the artwork wouldn't be..

I'm not sure how an authors ability to claim copyrights on content under law pertain to this topic. Steam publishes plenty of content that doesnt have copyrights associated.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by delete:

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Here you go.[www.reuters.com]

This article cites "works without human input." That was specific to the patent claim and not relevant to this conversation. These pieces are the result of human input.

They don't consider typing prompts 'human input' as evidence by the second article.

Originally posted by delete:

Originally posted by SlowMango:

Another one[www.artnews.com] where the copyright office went back and told a comic creator that the only thing eligible for copyright is the writing and 'original elements' that weren't machine created. So the artwork wouldn't be..

I'm not sure how an authors ability to claim copyrights on content under law pertain to this topic. Steam publishes plenty of content that doesnt have copyrights associated.

Because it means they don't own the work to put for sale. Valve by law is required to remove stuff that is DMCA claimed by another user. The issue is that since AI art by default is fed with copyrighted works, they don't allow it until it's prove that you only used works you own to feed into the AI.

Everything Steam publishes has copyright associated with it.

[delete]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

The difference between those 'clones' and the AI 'art' is those clones had someone draw the art, not tweak prompts until they got what they wanted.

So it is biased. It's biased towards actual creative input.

You cannot prove that content was created by AI or not. That's my point.

Steam cannot prove that code used to build a game is original. If the code is generated using AI and not original, the same problem with art can be said for game code. There is no way to enforce originality and there is very little originality in any of this.