Update 01/07/2023 - Valve sent over a statement here's what they said:
We are continuing to learn about AI, the ways it can be used in game development, and how to factor it in to our process for reviewing games submitted for distribution on Steam. Our priority, as always, is to try to ship as many of the titles we receive as we can. The introduction of AI can sometimes make it harder to show a developer has sufficient rights in using AI to create assets, including images, text, and music. In particular, there is some legal uncertainty relating to data used to train AI models. It is the developer's responsibility to make sure they have the appropriate rights to ship their game.
We know it is a constantly evolving tech, and our goal is not to discourage the use of it on Steam; instead, we're working through how to integrate it into our already-existing review policies. Stated plainly, our review process is a reflection of current copyright law and policies, not an added layer of our opinion. As these laws and policies evolve over time, so will our process.
We welcome and encourage innovation, and AI technology is bound to create new and exciting experiences in gaming. While developers can use these AI technologies in their work with appropriate commercial licenses, they can not infringe on existing copyrights.
Lastly, while App-submission credits are usually non-refundable, we're more than happy to offer them in these cases as we continue to work on our review process.
Original article below:
Here's an interesting one on Steam publishing for you. Valve appear to be clamping down on AI art used in games due to the murky legal waters. AI art is such a huge topic of discussion everywhere right now, as is other forms of "AI" like ChatGPT and it's just — everywhere. I can't seem to get away from talk on it from people for and against it.
In a post on Reddit, a developer who tried to release their game on Steam got word back from Valve that they have denied listing it. Here's what they sent the developer:
Hello,
While we strive to ship most titles submitted to us, we cannot ship games for which the developer does not have all of the necessary rights.
After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in [Game Name Here] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, [Game Name Here] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated assets, unless you can affirmatively confirm that you own the rights to all of the IP used in the data set that trained the AI to create the assets in your game.
We are failing your build and will give you one (1) opportunity to remove all content that you do not have the rights to from your build.
If you fail to remove all such content, we will not be able to ship your game on Steam, and this app will be banned.
That developer mentioned they tweaked the artwork, so it wasn't so obviously AI generated and spoke to Valve again but Valve once again rejected it noting:
Hello,
Thank you for your patience as we reviewed [Game Name Here] and took our time to better understand the AI tech used to create it. Again, while we strive to ship most titles submitted to us, we cannot ship games for which the developer does not have all of the necessary rights. At this time, we are declining to distribute your game since it’s unclear if the underlying AI tech used to create the assets has sufficient rights to the training data.
App credits are usually non-refundable, but we’d like to make an exception here and offer you a refund. Please confirm and we’ll proceed.
Thanks,
Given the current issues with AI art and how it's generated, this really seems like a no-brainer for Valve to deny publishing games that have AI art unless the developers of the games can prove fully they own the full rights. Their own guidelines are pretty clear on it, developers cannot publish games on Steam they don't have "adequate rights" to.
That said, this is a difficult topic to fully address. With the tools Valve will be using to flag these games, how will they be dealing with false positives? It's not likely Valve will be individually personally going over every game with a human checking it, and algorithms can be problematic. It's going to be interesting to see how this develops over time. Seems like more developers will need to have everything they need ready to ensure they can prove ownership of all artwork.
I've reached out to Valve to see if they have any comments on it to share.
What do you think about this? Let me know in the comments.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
in general i dont like not from the asthetic point of view (its almost always an inferior uncanny version of another art) and of course from the ethical point of view (most artists didnt agree with their art being used).
if an AI Could solve those 2 problems, then im all for it, we arent there yet, so its a nono.
one of the exceptions that i give is for things like AI-Upscaling, i dont like when people throw an anime OP in an AI to upscale it, it usually destroy the animation even if its not obvious , but for individual images and a bit of curation it can work fine, or for gaming or other stuff.
i think the plagiarism is the main argument to be against AI in game development
Last edited by elmapul on 30 June 2023 at 8:42 am UTC
StoneColdSpider Jun 30, 2023
ssj17vegeta Jun 30, 2023
As opposed as I am to using AI to replace artists (especially for big companies who can definitely afford hiring them), how do they check ?
Tomorrow, if I publish a game on Steam, what prevents them from banning me ? Do I have to show them the PSDs of the bitmap assets ? Do I have to record myself drawing it ?
Also, seing the size of the Steam library, how will they check all the games that come out ? Do they manually play all of them, looking at ALL the assets ? Will they require a special build just for them, showing all the non-encrypted assets ?
Or, as I suspect, will they use bots (oh, the irony) or other unreliable programs such as the ones that check if a text was written by Chat-GPT.
I see the (good) intention behind this, but I see no positive outcome for them or the devs.
I see the (good) intention behind this, but I see no positive outcome for them or the devs.
I don't think there is much of an "intention" here. The whole AI and "rights" thing seems to be in legal limbo right now and I can imagine that Valve just doesn't want to get burned by it until it's resolved.
If the AI was trained only with data produced by the the game's creator, then it would be only derivative of the developer and therefore okay to publish, but that would be a huge amount of work.
hardpenguin Jun 30, 2023
Are Steam really going to put Kryten out of a job???......Top marks for a perfect Red Dwarf reference!
(Kryten is, of course, part of Pengling's Robot Army. 
)(it is difficult to call it art)It sure can be funny, though!
Yes, this is good. Gotta get rid of the AI generated images (it is difficult to call it art).
It's obvious that this will not happen, right?
I do understand - and share - such feelings, but in the end, it's like trying to get rid of photos in the early stages of photography because they're "not art".
. I mean it's a big dispute of AI's use everywhere. And AI's use in game art? That sounds bad. In general AI development is going too fast ahead. We can only watch and hope for the best.
StalePopcorn Jun 30, 2023
gaboversta Jun 30, 2023
An intelligent artist improves by referencing their own work, not degrades.
--
This comment was written by someone who is generally annoyed at everything AI hype related, because it often lacks in quality, removes human essence (in most cases, it can be used as a tool for creativity but more often is used as a replacement), puts people out of jobs, infeinges on rights, has the conpanies providing access to it infringe on rights, etc.
no sorry it's not like that... sometimes (not always tho) AI just takes some art and slightly morphs it.Yes, this is good. Gotta get rid of the AI generated images (it is difficult to call it art).
It's obvious that this will not happen, right?
I do understand - and share - such feelings, but in the end, it's like trying to get rid of photos in the early stages of photography because they're "not art".
Did you actually try image making AI? I gave it an attempt, and while of course I don't know all the art out there, I'm confident this wasn't just something slightly morphed.
*edit* I'm just too easy to distract sometimes. :D "They're not art" in my comment obviously points to "photos".
In the end, it doesn't matter if you consider AI work art or copying or something in between. Neither did it matter if you called photography a mere copy of a moment in reality eons ago. It's a way to produce something that's sometimes nice to look at and sometimes not (which is also true for photos and drawings), and which will be used.
What I would hope for is that people get to know if something is AI generated.
Last edited by Eike on 30 June 2023 at 12:32 pm UTC
it's like trying to get rid of photos in the early stages of photography because they're "not art".
Art or not, if you published a photo consisting of a still from Star Wars or a page of a Harry Potter book, then you would likely be infringing IP.
it's like trying to get rid of photos in the early stages of photography because they're "not art".
Art or not, if you published a photo consisting of a still from Star Wars or a page of a Harry Potter book, then you would likely be infringing IP.
Yes, but I find this unlikely what devs would do. They could Paint Yoda and Harry already.
What devs likely would - and will - do is e.g. generating backgrounds instead of painting them. I've already seen this in point and click announcements. Looks very nice on first sight, on second you see some stuff is wrong.
And no, it's not what I want, I want to feel human's sweat on my monitor.
There will be games labeled "made without AI", and, as always, there will be miss-labeling.
hardpenguin Jun 30, 2023
pleasereadthemanual Jun 30, 2023
They could Paint Yoda and Harry already.
Painting Yoda or Harry is IP infringement unless one can prove fair use. This is not always possible, in fact Disney recently forced a day care to destroy a mural with paintings of their characters.
Proving fair use can be a legal challenge even in ordinary circumstances. Fair use claims are constantly being thrown out in court. The likelihood of success for AI generated art is even lower.
Most people who paint Yoda and Harry rely on the reluctance of big corporations to waste time suing small fry. Steam is a much juicier target, and therefore must be more vigilant.
They could Paint Yoda and Harry already.
Painting Yoda or Harry is IP infringement unless one can prove fair use.
You missunderstood what I tried to say: They can paint Yoda and Harry already, and thus infringe copyright, just like they can with AI. So I see nothing new with regards to Yoda and Harry.
Last edited by Eike on 30 June 2023 at 3:01 pm UTC
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me