 |
Out of Date Journalby
|
|
| Viewed: | 447 times |
| Added: | 5 months, 3 weeks ago |
| " | I would assume the fact that the model has been ripped and ported to a new software, and has been posed, lit, and who knows what else would constitute Fair Use. |
| " | How is that squared with your policy on AI |
| " | You must not use the names of living or recently-deceased creators (within the last 25 years) or their non-commercial characters as prompts without their permission, nor train models and/or use artist-focused LoRAs to obtain a similar effect. |
| " | (AI creating 3D models) |
| " | Does this mean if I made a custom model from scratch that had extremely similar topology, UVs and materials as the official model, that isn't allowed? |
| " | What if the topology was different but I wanted the model to look as game accurate as possible? Why is that not okay? |
| " | Are 3D artists just now not allowed to post art if the models look to similar to the character now? |
| " | What would the process even be regarding verifying any of this information? If prompted, would I need to do a side-by-side comparison of the ripped model and my custom model to show that the meshes are different? |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| That is partly why the (more restrictive) original policy wasn't effectively enforced to start with. |
| " |
There was nothing at all before. There were no restrictions on 3D renders in the ACP prior to Nov. 24. Here's the archived ACP and a correct interpretation for reference- be sure to "ctrl+f" the terms '3D' and 'render' in the ACP and note that both terms have zero hits: https://wiki.inkbunny.net/w/index.php?title=ACP&old... https://inkbunny.net/j/580056#commentid_2884820 |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Just because "3D renders" were not explicitly covered in the ACP does not mean it was not the staff interpretation of the existing text as it applied to 3D renders, i.e. interpreting them as a form of screenshot/capture. |
| " |
At no point is any medium outside of specifically screenshots mentioned, even in allusion. It doesn't matter what program it's from. It only matters whether or not it is a screenshot. And 3D renders are not. That is an objective fact. "Screenshots means 3D renders." > Why? "Because that's what we intended." > Where was that written? "It wasn't, this is how we interpreted it. > Then how were users supposed to know? "Because we enforced it that way." > Based on what written policy? "Screenshots." > But 3D renders are not screenshots. "Screenshots means 3D renders." That loop is the problem here. You cannot enforce an unpublished interpretation and then, years later, point to your own private enforcement history to justify that the interpretation must have been correct all along. That's exactly what arbitrary enforcement means. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| You of all people should know that because staff reached out to you about it seven months ago. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| reached out |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| What you got wrong in this journal was that we had not determined that "as of a few weeks ago" - rather it'd been determined closer to a decade ago, but we lacked the staffing to effectively enforce it |
| " | You cannot enforce an unpublished interpretation and then, years later, point to your own private enforcement history to justify that the interpretation must have been correct all along. That's exactly what arbitrary enforcement means. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
|
and were under the impression that members were rendering their own models because they'd not been providing attribution of third-party contributions. When we brought on staff early this year, they naturally started asking what the precedent was for various uncodified details, including 3D renderings, and acted accordingly. As a result of that incident, it became clear that a) we could no longer assume that people made their own models where not stated, since you and others had made it crystal clear that this was generally not the case |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| and b) few actually understood how this section of the policy (or for that matter, the one on derivative works) applied to their 3D renders. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Just because "3D renders" were not explicitly covered in the ACP does not mean it was not the staff interpretation of the existing text as it applied to 3D renders, i.e. interpreting them as a form of screenshot/capture. |
| " | "The fact that I can't post my stuff, but somehow AI slop that actively steals from artists is allowed to be posted is fucking unreal." |
