About AI usage!

[Elvathae.5168]

Let me be clear; this isn't about generating images etc. I'm mentioning this to avoid any confusion for those opening the post.

I'm currently making a roleplay Discord server for the game, where I've considered adding some AIs who act as characters from the game. This would be to make things a bit more real, and allow users to do some solo roleplaying, get some help with starting a roleplay session, or even create small quests to complete in-game to add some minor fun to the grind for gold and items. These WOULD NOT contain any inputted GW2 content but instead be purely made with personality descriptions + whatever publically available information they hold from the start (wiki and such, which I would have no control over, as I would use a free service I use for a personal non-GW2 related AI I have). Image generation WOULD NOT be possible with these either, and a disclaimer would be added to the server about how the AIs would NOT be official products but simply there to add some extra fun for those who roleplay.

Would these go against ToS? I know I could just make them without saying anything, but I refuse to break the rules of a franchise I've loved since I first played GW1, and therefore seek answers on the subject before making anything. I hope someone can give me clear answers because I'm honestly a bit confused about exactly what the new AI rule covers.

And to all who reads this;  Thank you for reading this wall of text, have an amazing day!

[Remus Darkblight.1673]

Firstly a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

That said, as a rule of thumb, if you aren't profiting from it and are not openly associated with any illegal or strongly political activities it is unlikely anything negative will come from what you describe. The main purpose of the EULA/ToS is defensive in nature, whereby if they request that you discontinue any activity using GW2 based content they have the legal right to do so because you agreed to the EULA/ToS.

All this stuff about AI generative tools sounds to me like they are just covering their bases and getting ahead of the game so to speak. In the event that they have a legal dispute with someone that revolves around AI tools, they can show that they already had this clause in the EULA/ToS. It doesn't mean they are suddenly taking a hard line on usage of GW2 content.

Provided you aren't taking any GW2 owned intellectual property or imagery and putting it into an AI tool, you're going to be pretty safe, especially with a relatively small and private group of role players.

Anet EULA/ToS

2.2.3 Obligations

[Elvathae.5168]

10 minutes ago, Remus Darkblight.1673 said:

Provided you aren't taking any GW2 owned intellectual property or imagery and putting it into an AI tool, you're going to be pretty safe, especially with a relatively small and private group of role players.

First; thank you for the detailed response, was easy to understand!

But yea, this is the conclusion I came to myself as well, and I'm by no means gonna put any imagery or property into these! Just personality descriptions and whatever public information they hold already! I'm still gonna wait a little, maybe until tomorrow, to see if others have a different view on it, and should any official Arenanet employees tell me no, they won't be made at all!

again; thank you for taking the time o7

Edited March 21 by Elvathae.5168
deleted a bit too much of the quote.

[kharmin.7683]

Anet probably won't give an official response here in the forum.

[Elvathae.5168]

5 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Anet probably won't give an official response here in the forum.

You're most likely right, but one can hope!

[costepj.5120]

They certainly won't give you any sort of generic approval in a public forum; that could be abused by other users. IP/IC laws are very nuanced and you'd most likely need to submit some sort of detailed description of what you were doing and you might manage to get some tacit approval along the lines of how they worked with the arcdps developer. But for the limited use case you have outlined, I doubt it's worth either your time documenting it or their time reviewing it.

[Elvathae.5168]

3 minutes ago, costepj.5120 said:

They certainly won't give you any sort of generic approval in a public forum; that could be abused by other users. IP/IC laws are very nuanced and you'd most likely need to submit some sort of detailed description of what you were doing and you might manage to get some tacit approval along the lines of how they worked with the arcdps developer. But for the limited use case you have outlined, I doubt it's worth either your time documenting it or their time reviewing it.

That does make perfect sense! If they respond to me, it could potentially create some issues later on, so I guess i should not get my hopes up for that one! I am glad to see people drawing the same conclusion as I tho; that this minor project should not be an issue. I just wanted to be sure first, as I fully respect their decision, and don't want to create any trouble.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

This may or may not be informational:  https://www.arena.net/en/legal/content-terms-of-use

[Zok.4956]

3 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

Would these go against ToS?

From 2.2.3  : "(c) acknowledge that you have no right to Our Content, (d) do not input Our Content into generative AI tools like Midjourney, Dall-E, ChatGPT, AudioCraft, etc."

"etc" means it is not an exhaustive list of tools, just examples. And that of course other tools fall under this if they are “generative AI tools”.

2 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

But yea, this is the conclusion I came to myself as well, and I'm by no means gonna put any imagery or property into these! (...) Image generation WOULD NOT be possible with these either

It does not matter if the content is text, audio, image, video... because in the sentence above it is about all "Our Content". So you would break the rules if you put "Our Content" in your AI-chat-bot.

3 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

These WOULD NOT contain any inputted GW2 content but instead be purely made with personality descriptions + whatever publically available information they hold from the start (wiki and such

If these sources fell under "Our Content" from Anet's TOS perspective, you would be violating the TOS. So the next step would be to look closely in the TOS to see what counts as “Our Content”.

EDIT: (from 2.2.2) "To the extent that User Content constitutes derivative works of our content (“Our Content”), we own such User Content from the moment of creation. " 

This means that it is also forbidden to put user content into generative AI tools if the user content is based on or contains “Our Content”. That would also include this forum and the wiki.

BTW: The fact that the TOS may contradict certain local laws in individual countries (e.g. German copyright law) is another matter. Unfortunately, this has no advantage for your project.

Edited March 21 by Zok.4956

[Omega.6801]

2 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

You're most likely right, but one can hope!

Instead of hoping you could contact them via E-mail if you're serious about your request.

[Elvathae.5168]

1 hour ago, Zok.4956 said:

From 2.2.3  : "(c) acknowledge that you have no right to Our Content, (d) do not input Our Content into generative AI tools like Midjourney, Dall-E, ChatGPT, AudioCraft, etc."

"etc" means it is not an exhaustive list of tools, just examples. And that of course other tools fall under this if they are “generative AI tools”.

It does not matter if the content is text, audio, image, video... because in the sentence above it is about all "Our Content". So you would break the rules if you put "Our Content" in your AI-chat-bot.

If these sources fell under "Our Content" from Anet's TOS perspective, you would be violating the TOS. So the next step would be to look closely in the TOS to see what counts as “Our Content”.

EDIT: (from 2.2.2) "To the extent that User Content constitutes derivative works of our content (“Our Content”), we own such User Content from the moment of creation. " 

This means that it is also forbidden to put user content into generative AI tools if the user content is based on or contains “Our Content”. That would also include this forum and the wiki.

BTW: The fact that the TOS may contradict certain local laws in individual countries (e.g. German copyright law) is another matter. Unfortunately, this has no advantage for your project.

Hmm those are some great points, but I'm still a bit confused. I mean, all AIs today have access to Wikipedia, and therefore already hold most info on GW2. So from what I understand from your comment, simply talking to the AI about the game should not be allowed, or am I misunderstanding? Because that's all the AI characters on Discord would be, as I would not manually input any GW2 content, and the AIs would only use the pre-existing knowledge they hold from their Wiki access.

And thank you for the detailed response, it's always good to have both sides of the coin before making a decision! o7

[Elvathae.5168]

40 minutes ago, Omega.6801 said:

Instead of hoping you could contact them via E-mail if you're serious about your request.

Did consider it, but I doubt they'd have time for such a minor question + I'm not sure exactly where to send the question, as I don't want people with actual game problems to get help slower because of me. Thank you for your suggestion tho!

[Elvathae.5168]

1 hour ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

This may or may not be informational:  https://www.arena.net/en/legal/content-terms-of-use

Regardless of whether it ends up as informative or not; thank you for providing it! I will give it a look later! o7

[Astralporing.1957]

First, it would likely break EULA. That restriction is extremely heavyhanded and could cover pretty much everything - including publicly posting any screenshots from the game, for example. Or even sharing them with a small circle of your friends, if one happened to feed it to some AI tool later. It would definitely cover wiki too.

All this suggests that they do not really plan to invoke those terms in huge majority of the covered cases. It's just some sort of legal backup they tried to add while whole industry is trying to cope with emergence of  AI tech. What they are really trying to accomplish is likely just nothing more than stating officially that all their stuff is still theirs, and putting it through an AI blender is not changing that. It's probably there in case any future legal cases migh involve proving they used due dilligence in protecting their trademarks.

So, generally, you should probably be fine. Just don't expect Anet to ever tell you so.

[Pifil.5193]

1 hour ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

Hmm those are some great points, but I'm still a bit confused. I mean, all AIs today have access to Wikipedia, and therefore already hold most info on GW2. So from what I understand from your comment, simply talking to the AI about the game should not be allowed, or am I misunderstanding? Because that's all the AI characters on Discord would be, as I would not manually input any GW2 content, and the AIs would only use the pre-existing knowledge they hold from their Wiki access.

And thank you for the detailed response, it's always good to have both sides of the coin before making a decision! o7

There's not a whole lot of detail on Wikipedia about GW2. The GW2 wiki has lots of details and usage of that wiki falls under the User Agreement and Content Terms of Use above. They're explicitly forbidding the use of their content including the parts of the wiki that relate to their content in AI. It's too late for the existing ones because they (and most of the world) didn't foresee the need to block their use in AI but it's there to block future AI models from using their content at all.

[LSD.4673]

"I have spent my afternoon trying to conjure up a way to posit a forum question about a pointless new EULA addition"

[Zok.4956]

3 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

I mean, all AIs today have access to Wikipedia, and therefore already hold most info on GW2.

I meant the GW2 Wiki, not Wikipedia.  Just because some information is technically accessible doesn't mean there aren't legal restrictions on what you can do with it.

The wording was included because some AI providers (want to) make a lot of money with other people's intellectual property without the actual creators sharing in their profits. 

And the first step is therefore a general ban in order to have the opportunity to take legal action against the use of Anet's intellectual property by AI companies.

I do think that Anet may make exceptions in the future, e.g. for non-commercial fan projects, to allow this. But whether and when Anet will do that... only Anet can say. Until then, the general ban on AI use applies to Anet's intellectual property.

Maybe  @Rubi Bayer.8493 can help clarify this question?

 

3 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

So from what I understand from your comment, simply talking to the AI about the game should not be allowed, or am I misunderstanding?

Well, “simply talking” can also mean that you are training an AI with data/information. What some AI users in other areas are currently learning the hard way when they realize that the AI owner is also training the AI with their (paid and private) chat sessions.

 

3 hours ago, Elvathae.5168 said:

the AIs would only use the pre-existing knowledge they hold from their Wiki access.

You mean from the GW2-wiki (user generated content that is based on GW2 content) or the Wikipedia?  Training an AI with information from the GW2 Wiki (from Anet's perspective probably "user content based on our content") would most likely be a violation of Anet's regulations. Training an AI from Wikipedia would probably not violate Anet rules.

 

Edited March 21 by Zok.4956

[Albadaran.1283]

Currently its hard to say what is allowed or not. But certain is that it's impossible to stop increasing ai usage for all kind of purposes, good or bad. Where to daw the line? May someone use a GW2 screendump of a character to let ai create a nice picture of it in a different environment? Adding diffrent cloths or removing clothes? No matter what is allowed or not, this IS going to happen when ai makes it possible. Same for animations, spoken word, etc. Once its possible there is no way to stop it...

[Elvathae.5168]

15 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

First, it would likely break EULA. That restriction is extremely heavyhanded and could cover pretty much everything - including publicly posting any screenshots from the game, for example. Or even sharing them with a small circle of your friends, if one happened to feed it to some AI tool later. It would definitely cover wiki too.

All this suggests that they do not really plan to invoke those terms in huge majority of the covered cases. It's just some sort of legal backup they tried to add while whole industry is trying to cope with emergence of  AI tech. What they are really trying to accomplish is likely just nothing more than stating officially that all their stuff is still theirs, and putting it through an AI blender is not changing that. It's probably there in case any future legal cases migh involve proving they used due dilligence in protecting their trademarks.

So, generally, you should probably be fine. Just don't expect Anet to ever tell you so.

Thank you for the reply! It seems this subject is a bit more detailed than I first assumed, so maybe I should wait a few more days and see what people say. So far, there are some mixed responses, and I really don't want to create any issues, or risk having a 15+ years old account being hit.

[Elvathae.5168]

15 hours ago, Pifil.5193 said:

There's not a whole lot of detail on Wikipedia about GW2. The GW2 wiki has lots of details and usage of that wiki falls under the User Agreement and Content Terms of Use above. They're explicitly forbidding the use of their content including the parts of the wiki that relate to their content in AI. It's too late for the existing ones because they (and most of the world) didn't foresee the need to block their use in AI but it's there to block future AI models from using their content at all.

So in your opinion, it should not be a major issue, as long as the only info they hold would be what's pre-existing? No training or anything, just purely wiki info that I do not input myself?

[Elvathae.5168]

14 hours ago, LSD.4673 said:

"I have spent my afternoon trying to conjure up a way to posit a forum question about a pointless new EULA addition"

Well pretty much, but better safe than sorry, as I don't want to risk any actions against my account for a minor project! o7

[Elvathae.5168]

14 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

I meant the GW2 Wiki, not Wikipedia.  Just because some information is technically accessible doesn't mean there aren't legal restrictions on what you can do with it.

The wording was included because some AI providers (want to) make a lot of money with other people's intellectual property without the actual creators sharing in their profits. 

And the first step is therefore a general ban in order to have the opportunity to take legal action against the use of Anet's intellectual property by AI companies.

I do think that Anet may make exceptions in the future, e.g. for non-commercial fan projects, to allow this. But whether and when Anet will do that... only Anet can say. Until then, the general ban on AI use applies to Anet's intellectual property.

Maybe  @Rubi Bayer.8493 can help clarify this question?

 

Well, “simply talking” can also mean that you are training an AI with data/information. What some AI users in other areas are currently learning the hard way when they realize that the AI owner is also training the AI with their (paid and private) chat sessions.

 

You mean from the GW2-wiki (user generated content that is based on GW2 content) or the Wikipedia?  Training an AI with information from the GW2 Wiki (from Anet's perspective probably "user content based on our content") would most likely be a violation of Anet's regulations. Training an AI from Wikipedia would probably not violate Anet rules.

 

Oh so GW2 wiki and general wiki aren't the same? Thank you for the clarification! I just assumed it was!

In terms of training, then that's an area I've covered! The service I use has a separate training feature, and won't be gaining any new knowledge or memories unless manually told so, so the information they hold would always remain the same. They would be purely able to take account for a certain amount of messages in the chat, but would not learn anything new unless I use the training feature (which I would of course refrain from doing) + conversations aren't saved by the provider to avoid privacy issues. I of course can't be 100% sure, so I'd have to double-check before doing absolutely anything, but so far there's been no issues when using my non-gw2 related AI.

Seems I will have to do a bit more digging before making a decision tho, but thank you for the reply o7

[Elvathae.5168]

20 minutes ago, Albadaran.1283 said:

Currently its hard to say what is allowed or not. But certain is that it's impossible to stop increasing ai usage for all kind of purposes, good or bad. Where to daw the line? May someone use a GW2 screendump of a character to let ai create a nice picture of it in a different environment? Adding diffrent cloths or removing clothes? No matter what is allowed or not, this IS going to happen when ai makes it possible. Same for animations, spoken word, etc. Once its possible there is no way to stop it...

That is true! But I, as a person, want to do what's morally right regardless of what others may be doing, so I want to be sure that this would be acceptable before making anything. Maybe I should just wait until they potentially update the new rule, tho that could of course take a long time, but it's better to be safe than sorry \o/

[Charall.4710]

On 3/21/2024 at 10:57 AM, kharmin.7683 said:

Anet probably won't give an official response here in the forum.

They might actually, anet has a track record of responding to larger posts. Really depends.

[Zebulous.2934]

Considering the age of the account you are writing with, I assume you are posting with a throwaway alt.

How would you expect Anet to find your discord server among the hundreds of thousands of discord servers in existince?  Do you expect betrayal within your discord?  How would Anet link the discord with any particular account at all?  Even with an "informant" there is no proof.  For that matter, you aren't even using the character names.  I assure you that every modern character shares traits with numerous historical characters across every culture. 

You have described making a couple of AI chat bots. Any resemblence to Guildwars characters is superficial at best.  

No rules are broken, and there is nothing to enforce.  Even current Ritlock only vaguely resembles the Ritlock of ten years ago. 

You have quite the ego, to think your vague AI prompts constitute legally indistinguishable copies of existing characters.

Edited March 28 by Zebulous.2934
Indistinguishable