Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(1 edit) (+1)

Allow me to repeat myself:

I am not aware of any precedent when it comes to pixel art, but in music, landmark US cases have upheld copyright for musical motifs consisting of as little as four (that is the number that comes after three) notes because even that constitutes enough creative effort (the actual standard that is being applied) to constitute copyrightable material.

I would also argue that, if making pixel art doesn't take enough effort to justify copyright, surely you can just make your own without using AI. Right? You'd have to be a pretty big idiot if you need AI to generate the artistic equivalent of a single musical note.

(+1)

That’s very relative; there can also be combinations of many more notes that aren’t copyrighted because they’re part of a broader musical style. The point is that while it’s true we can’t allow artists’ work to be stolen, we also can’t allow an artist to misappropriate something that belongs to everyone. Disney can claim the rights to Mickey Mouse, but not to mice in general—mice belong to everyone.

(1 edit) (+1)

And nobody is claiming copyright to animation in general, only to those animations that were stolen from their authors to train the AI models that are creating animations for you.

Again, if the animations you are generating with them are so simple and generalistic that they couldn't possibly be copyrighted, you should be able to just do them yourself. You aren't doing it, because you aren't able to, because it is nontrivial creative work, and therefor it should be protected by copyright just like any other nontrivial creative work.

So, again: why should this be treated differently and more lightly than stealing other kinds of nontrivial creative work?