The closest analogy I can find are technical drawings. Still, some works can be thought of as Public Domain when for example they aren't even covered by copyright and thus aren't "works" in the legal sense. What you're probably alluding to is that in Germany authors can't put their work into the Public Domain (except by time-traveling back 71 years and dying). Germany does have a concept of a Public Domain ( Gemeinfreiheit) even if it might not be the same as in the US. This is something already discussed by politicians.Īnd in Germany at least, the concept of Public Domain does not even exist. Side note: It's possible that a similar ancillary copyright law could be introduced in favor of those who train the model. Funnily enough, while every random snap from a smartphone is a copyrighted work, screenshots from videogames generally are not copyrighted works on their own even if raytracing is used in the progress. Note that this only applies to real photographies. This was introduced because back in the day, photography (regardless of originality) was expensive and not as readily available as today. While a painting needs to be a "personal interlectual creation" (german: persönliche geistige Schöpfung) and a threshold of originality to be elligible, a photo is automatically protected through a so-called "ancillary copyright" (german: Leistungsschutzrecht).
They differ in the criteria they need to fulfill in order to get protection. This is no legal advice but speaking from a German perspective: Photographies are not subject to copyright in the same way that drawn art or literture is. Shooting a photo takes far less human involvement than creating something with AI, but most photos are still protected by copyright law. My intention with the little snippet was to eliminate as many uncertainties as possible about the legal status of the images. Yes, it isn't, because it is much more complex than that. You don't even need to actively redistribute a modified asset, you are just not allowed to complain if anyone rips it from your project's files.Īlso, forcing share alike and credit it as AI generated would be a great way to spread awareness about the usefulness of AI art without having to take part in this toxic discussion that's going on everywhere right now. Basically this is only a safeguard against people reselling assets after applying minimal changes.
#SEAMLESS AI PATTERNS FREE LICENSE#
ShareAlike - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.Īs long as you don't change the file you don't need to do anything, and if you do, it just means anyone can use the file under the CC-by-sa. It's not that hard to just copy an asset's source/the creator's name into a credits file. You are implying that you did everything yourself if you don't credit the assets creators. If by the end of a project you don't know where your assets came from, that's just bad organization.
0 kommentar(er)
