this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
144 points (95.6% liked)

PC Gaming

8553 readers
536 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
144
Modder Who Put Pokémon Into Palword Says 'Nintendo Has Come for Me' (sea.ign.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

These days you train a “AI” to reproduce the copywritten assets, distribute your “AI” and then say the machine did it, so it’s not copyright.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Not really how copyright works but ok

EDIT: The fact that you got an AI to replicate something that already exists does not invalidate the original rightholder’s copyright. Further, “AIs can’t hold a copyright” just means the person who prompted the AI owns the work, in the same way Photoshopping something doesn’t mean that Photoshop itself now owns the copyright (nor does Adobe). Thus, you still end up the person responsible for violating Nintendo’s copyright and trademarks, and we’re just doing the same thing with extra steps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but by OpenAIs line of argument, the model itself isn’t piracy/theft/rights-infringing.

The output of the model might be, but that’s not the model creators problem. So by distributing the model, you’re no longer distributing infringing material.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

The output of the model might be, but that’s not the model creators problem

But it is the problem of the hypothetical person trying to launder copywritten assets through an AI. I guess you were probably just joking but it doesn't make sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Huh, I thought it was that it couldn't qualify for copyright because it was ai produced. Not made by a human. Like the monkey selfie