Alberto, we asked you already before to stop promoting your own product here. This discussion is about the legality of AI generated content and if it should be allowed on the Epic marketplace (and other Epic platforms like Artstation).
If you want to promote your AI product or other AI tools, then please start your own discussion.
uffffff
just don’t mention me anymore
Another one:
They are already here, scared we may get out.
It’s funny that you mentioned getty lawyers being trolls in the 2nd thread the same day they attacked stability.ai. I would play lotto today 
AI stuff should be allowed to be sold as long as the AI’s license permits this.
Saying AI steals from other people is false, it just learns from other people their work much like a normal human does.
AI system license can say whatever it wants, doesn’t mean necessary mean that it’s true. The “AI steals artists data” argument aside (which is technically false IMO, but let’s wait for courts opinions) - it was mentioned already multiple times (with citation to multiple articles, including lawyers opinions) in this thread that the copyright/ownership of output of prompt-based image generation system is not clear at best.
I can make a painting in the style of Piet Mondriaan, so can an AI, both of these would hold the same amount of rights in my opinion.
Right, style (so far at least) cannot be copyrighted…
More, but the same…
And now that real artists are pulling their portfolios from Artstation and similiar sites, the AI bros are panicking because they can’t use these artists portfolios in their AI generations anymore. It’s hilarious. 
Are you sure those are “ai bros”? This exchange doesn’t point to that. Also that doesn’t look like someone is panicking… And even if, that kind of sentiment can also be expressed by anybody (not related to generative images) having their fav artists removing portfolios.
Also since when couple of random dudes talking on a discord server is newsworthy? 
(which doesn’t mean much IMO, esp. that ai reference images packs are still sold there in troves, and that was what actually caused the outrage from what I’ve seen)
That “update” from Artstation doesn’t really mean anything, it’s basically the same message they send out a few weeks ago already.
Unless Epic actually sues Stable AI and Midjourney, these new terms won’t change anything. Neither does artstations new opt-in “no-AI” html-tag, the AI tools will scrape the images regardless of html tags or terms.
So this is just a meaningless attempt to calm down the anger of the artists. Which is even more obvious when you consider that Epic - as you pointed out - still allows these AI images to be sold on their Unreal marketplace or even the artstation marketplace. The irony.
Can you learn anything and make an art in just seconds? lol
I don’t see how this is relevant.
Legal Eagle did an interesting overview of this issue recently.
Those images that reproduced artwork nearly verbatim and even added a rough facsimile of the watermark offer a compelling case that some of these AI tools act more like ‘collage generators.’ That’s a pretty strong argument in favor that these systems are exploiting copyright works by creating content that clearly falls under the derivate work definition.
If true and Getty doesn’t give permission, then a court may rule that content generated from that artwork doesn’t get a copyright. It logically follows that some of the A.I. generated stuff submitted here to the marketplace is submitted by artists that don’t actually retain copyright themselves to the work generated, regardless of what the terms say in the A.I. license.
However, I can see why Epic has remained permissive on the sale of unaltered A.I. content. Epic could be fine with artists submitting this content since the original TOS for most of these generators grant the author a license to distribute the content. I would assume that Epic’s lawyers have probably said something along these lines.
In short, it’s unlikely Epic will be responsible if the courts find issues. Any legal consequences will probably fall on the companies that run the A.I. tools themselves.
It will be interesting to see where the courts stand on all this.
Thanks for the vid. Will watch it soon, as more perspectives are interesting on this topic.
I think courts already decided a few times that non-human created content is ineligible for copyright. Doesn’t mean that copyright will not evolve in the future, but right now “creating” is big part of copyright.
I am not a lawyer, buy EULA got them covered. Even from cases like this one: Illegal (stolen) asset in the monthly free selection . I don’t recall anything about any level of liability on Epic part for damages incurred by using marketplace content.
I looked at that example. That’s interesting. I wonder if Epic just automatically assumes the seller has some sort of agreement with Mixamo? I get that they wouldn’t discuss their conversations with the seller, but it’s hard to see how that’s not a good look.
