Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by soerxpso 1092 days ago
> The tool used to create said art has no bearing on the final art with regards to copyright.

This is still an open question with regards to AI art generation tools. Do you have recent legal precedent to cite that I don't know about, or are you just making things up?
1 comments
chii 1092 days ago
> This is still an open question with regards to AI art generation tools.

While it is an unanswered question with no legal precedence, i am a believer that what isn't currently illegal is and should be considered legal, until harm has been shown and thus require legal ruling.

link
RoyalHenOil 1092 days ago
Valve may be anticipating that it will become illegal, in which case they would have to pull games from the store and issue refunds. They may be waiting to see which way the wind blows on this before they get their revenue stream mixed up with it.
link
johnnyanmac 1092 days ago
It would be so nice if they reflected that in their submission policy if that is the case.

But that requires Valve to be transparent to developers, and we know how well they are with that.

link
dwaite 1091 days ago
Do you have a legal decision that AI art forms no derivative of a copyrighted work, vs a derivative of ALL the copyrighted work in its training set?

There is no new law, there is ambiguity with the lack of current case law. There are certainly people who think generative art based on scraping the internet is infringing under current legal standards. We won't know until people go to court and judges make decisions.

Valve's insistence in the face of their own liability for selling derivative works seems a sound business decision here, at least when selling in markets where it is an open legal issue.

link