Support us on Patreon to keep GamingOnLinux alive. This ensures all of our main content remains free for everyone. Just good, fresh content! Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal. You can also buy games using our partner links for GOG and Humble Store.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

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.
23 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
63 comments
Page: «3/7»
  Go to:

Klaas Jun 30, 2023
Oh that reminds me… there was a thing a few years ago where you could randomly generate/write Harry Potter sentences – either completely random or as a suggestion for words based on the text that is already there.
fabertawe Jun 30, 2023
This so called "AI" (true AI will never be realised IMO) has opened a very, very large can of worms. And these worms are never going back in the can. Chaos will ensue.

This is not generally a good thing, in my view. Jobs will be lost and the quality of human creativity will be diluted and swamped by a tsunami of this stuff.
morphles Jun 30, 2023
Jesus Christ, did not expect such "AI is not art bunch"... In short, you guys are full of it, and also history will not be on your side. AI art is art, and it very much will not be stopped.

QuoteThese people ... they can not stop the future. And nobody even needs to find them!

As for Valve, sorta understandable, yet extremely disappointing, I hope soon enough that can be changed.
silverhikari Jun 30, 2023
also found out this not just specifically for ai art as this ruling also targets any AI content including text. which i am kind of glad with it not being just ai art that is getting targeted by this ruling.
Kimyrielle Jun 30, 2023
The US copyright office deemed AI art non-copyrightable, which in the end means that there is no good reason to ban it. If generative AI made it, the developer of a game doesn't own it, but nobody else does, either. It's for all practical purposes Public Domain. The one exception might be overfitting (generative AI accidentally producing output close enough to the copyrighted data it got trained with). Overfitting is currently the core of a lawsuit Getty Images filed against StabilityAI - their model is known to have reproduced their (trademarked) image watermark in its output. That doesn't mean that ALL AI art is legally questionable, just some of the output might be. Similar scenarios can already happen when a developer is using assets they believe to be free, when they're in fact not. Valve still doesn't ask for proof of ownership of every single asset used in a game published on Steam.

This rule seems more to be about taking Valve out of the line of fire coming from the anti-AI peanut gallery. As is evident by a surprising number of posters is this thread, humans still hate change and will fight everything new because it's new. Teachers have fought calculators when they were new, and artists considered Photoshop the end of all art when it released, too. Now the newest object of hate is generative AI. It's not surprising. It's just how people are. In 10 years, there will be two kinds of game studios: The ones that embraced AI tools, and the bankrupt ones. Until then, the peanut gallery will throw a few more peanuts, I guess.
Klaas Jun 30, 2023
Sadly I'm not surprised that the pro AI people cannot state their opinion without belittling/making fun of/insulting those with different views. Same with the crypto people.

A different issue with ML technology is that it is most useful at recognizing patterns/automating things like automatic surveillance (see China). It is a technology that can very easily be abused. Like the invention of the atomic bomb it will change the world – probably not for good. We've seen it used by banks to automate credit ratings where it was trained to be sexist. It's used by publishers to reject books that are not similar to past bestsellers. It's used in cameras to improve the picture quality/focus – there have been cases where it was shown to work better for people with white skin.
Grogan Jun 30, 2023
I don't think anything is wrong with AI art, the problem is arrogant people who think they've reinvented the wheel every time they draw a breath and everyone else owes them homage... and a litigious nation it's all staged in.

Sorry, but I paint mountains for a living and your terrain generator algorithms you used for your game graphics are infringing on my work. Those are my texture patterns! ( /sarcasm )

P.S. I should say that I don't think AI art should be copyrightable. If you use it, you don't get those protections.


Last edited by Grogan on 30 June 2023 at 5:42 pm UTC
Purple Library Guy Jun 30, 2023
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: hardpenguinYes, 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".
People said similar things about music sharing--where did it go?
Purple Library Guy Jun 30, 2023
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: FSE
Quoting: EikeThey 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.
Yeah, but the point is everything an AI produces is somebody's Yoda or Harry--maybe two or three somebodies mixed together if you're lucky.
Purple Library Guy Jun 30, 2023
Quoting: EikeDid 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.
There's a lot of weird stuff on DeviantArt. I wouldn't want to bet too hard if I were you. Certainly when a couple of my friends were fiddling with AI art, they found that when they did variants on some pretty odd requests, there were strong patterns in what they got. Some definitely looked like the same picture was being warped in somewhat different ways.
When I think of it, probably the more "normal" a request, the less of this phenomenon you're likely to see, because there will be more source material and the results will be a blend of more sources.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.