this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

PC Gaming

8254 readers
426 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
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Wait, this idiot announced a Pokemon mod without it actually being complete?

Block and ignore him immediately, he is just chasing clout.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The idea of a Pokemon mod is cool and all, but let's be real, Palworld did a better job with their monsters than Nintendo has been lately.

Flamenco? ...seriously?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Nintendo Ninjas are real. They come armed with wiimotes and nunchucks.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if anyone is going to mod Steam Boat Willy into the game and see how long it takes Disney to claim trademark infringement.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They'd be 23 days late on that claim

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They've started putting steam boat Willy in front of all their movies so they can protect it with trademark since the copyright has expired.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

have they actually tried enforcing it yet? or is that just the internet's working theory?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Just the theory but it isn't outside of Disney's MO

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Not that this would save the average person from litigation hell, but does Nintendo actually have a legal leg to stand on? What would make a (free) mod any different from any other artistic expression?

Also assuming the mod creator didn't do anything crazy like rip assets from an existing Pokémon game.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How can something that is a free mod get a DMCA claim? I'm not a professional at all but shouldn't there be a stipulation that says if it's free it doesn't count or something? I knew copyright laws were really bad but I always figured free passion projects were fine.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Y'all feel free to download OP for asking an honest question. That'll show 'em!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It uses assets owned and copyrighted by Nintendo. It doesn't matter if it's free, If they don't want their stuff being used, they have that choice.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Minecraft has a pokemon mod, wonder where nintendo lawyers were with that one?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I mean if you brag enough they can request a takedown, go ahead!

Pointing fingers with this kind of thing is silly. It's obvious it's because it drew attention.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I suppose that does make sense, still lame though. I do hope that everyone starts dog piling on Nintendo soon though. They are almost as bad as Disney with hogging all the cool generational content behind bullshit public domain laws

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I stopped buying Nintendo products awhile ago. I'm not a fan of how they treat people. The DMCA needs to be eradicated, it is just a way for companies to bully people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The DMCA safe harbor provision is absolutely huge to the ability of sites to host user generated content.

Without it, sites would have to be far more restrictive because they'd potentially be liable for that content.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Who had "within 24 hours"? Anybody?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

forget hours, I am surprised he even survived pressing the upload button

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Luckily, the corpos haven't gone full Minority Report on our asses yet.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

give them a decade give or take lel

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah no shit. The way you do this is you release it, no notice. Open source or at least release the files so others can repackage if needed. Then if you get a C&D, it's out there and you can take yours down but others can upload dozens of other copies. But they all want to build up their fame first with teasers.

Makes me think it wasn't real when they keep making the same mistakes.

Speaking to IGN, Toasted Shoes said he still plans to publish the full video showcasing the mod, but will comply with any further copyright notices from Nintendo. “We would love to complete the mod pack and release it for free to the public, however for now we are playing it by ear as we don't want any legal troubles,” Toasted Shoes said.

It's not even complete yet. I'm betting this is the last we'll hear of it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 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] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 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] 0 points 8 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] 0 points 8 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] 0 points 8 months ago

Further, “AIs can’t hold a copyright” just means the person who prompted the AI owns the work

Assuming you’re in the US: not true. In order to be able to be copyrighted, a work must have had its traditional elements of authorship produced by a human, and it has been well established that simply providing a prompt does not qualify.

Such a work has no copyright protections of its own, but that does not prevent it from being a violation of someone else’s copyright or trademark. If you’re responsible for the creation of a work, it’s irrelevant whether that work is itself copyrighted when determining if you’ve created a derivative work that infringes the copyright of the original rights-holder.

From https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” 7

The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.” 8

More recently, the Office reviewed a registration for a work containing human-authored elements combined with AI-generated images. In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel9 comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright. 10

In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans.

And in the current edition of the Compendium, the Office states that “to qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being” and that it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” 22

In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 24 The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.25 This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.

If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it 26 For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt 27 from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output. 28 For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. 29 But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. 30 When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.31 As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.32

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 33 Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. 34 In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of ” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself. 35

This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. For example, a visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image, 36 and a musical artist may use effects such as guitar pedals when creating a sound recording. In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship.37

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Yep, if he'd release it first then publicize it, we could have had copies of it floating around but this influencer had to spread hype to all the news outlets, getting attention from big N real quick.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

This supposed showcase he intends to release should be worth a laugh at least