[HN Gopher] Animated Drawings
___________________________________________________________________
Animated Drawings
Author : newswasboring
Score : 115 points
Date : 2021-12-21 08:55 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sketch.metademolab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (sketch.metademolab.com)
| wtf77 wrote:
| Cannot adjust the points by draggin them in firefox and safari.
| Am I the only one?
| gppk wrote:
| No, only works in Chrome
| zufallsheld wrote:
| Works for me in Firefox mobile.
| p2hari wrote:
| wow, simply awesome. I had a drawing on a book with lines, but
| still managed to get it working.
| thunderbong wrote:
| What a fantastic idea! Wonderful!
| avian wrote:
| Previous thread on HN (40 comments):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29580619
| hsnice16 wrote:
| Great work done!
| blagie wrote:
| It'd be nice if there were clear ToS about what rights the child
| has to derivative works automatically created from their drawing.
|
| Can a child draw something and use this to animate it for a
| Youtube video?
| avian wrote:
| I don't see how Facebook could claim copyright over the created
| animations and restrict what you could do with them. The
| language of the terms of service even acknowledges that ("
| _you_ grant Facebook ... license to reproduce ... derivative
| works).
|
| The basic element of copyright is some level of creative input.
| Mass, automated transformative processes without human input
| traditionally don't count as creative (e.g. compiling source
| code with a compiler usually doesn't mean that compiler authors
| get copyright over the binary as a derived work).
|
| AI is recently being presented as kind of a gray area where if
| you remove the inputs far enough from the outputs with huge,
| incomprehensible machine learning models the outputs count as
| original works, even when provenance is sometimes clear in the
| end (e.g. see the whole debate about GitHub Copilot
| regurgitating well-known pieces of code). I suspect that's
| mostly the big tech companies lobbying and pushing for this re-
| interpretation of copyright.
| blagie wrote:
| I'm aware of that. Most kids and parents won't be.
|
| This is a case which is legally complex. The result here
| combines Meta's work with the child's work. A lot of the
| legal test might hinge on things such as the extent to which
| the gaits (jumping, dancing, etc.) are creative works created
| by Meta versus automated transformations. I suspect a court
| decision would hinge on the judge, and perhaps what the judge
| ate that morning.
|
| But, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right, and
| remixing outputs is 100% legal.
|
| Families won't know that. For families to know that, they'd
| need a legal analysis from a lawyer. Families won't pay for
| that so their kid can make a Youtube video.
|
| If you're making the world's ultimate video skit, do you want
| to make it without knowing what you're allowed to do with it?
|
| The problem with legal complexity is simply that people don't
| do things.
|
| A nice license, being explicit about what you can and can't
| do resolves that.
|
| License text is also a social contract. A compiler maker
| might not have copyright over the output, but if they don't
| want me using their tool for something, I might respect that
| out of politeness. Or I might choose to pick a fight if I
| think they're being unreasonable and it will help others. It
| depends on the context. Signalling intentions is helpful as
| well.
| dls2016 wrote:
| There are thousands of tools out there for automating
| tedious parts of animation or drawing or video editing or
| audio production...
|
| Where is the complexity?
|
| For instance ReCycle was a tool written in the 90s for
| chopping up a sampled beat (waveform) to allow easy re-
| arranging. (Now the company makes Reason.)
| blagie wrote:
| I'll oversimplify video production to make the point, but
| let's say I'm making a video where a Bob runs up to
| Alice, makes a snide comment, Alice makes a clever
| comeback, and Bob slinks away in shame. There are a few
| creative parts to this:
|
| 1) Writing the script.
|
| 2) Designing the visual look of Bob and Alice.
|
| 3) Designing the animation (e.g. animating the body
| language of "slinking").
|
| Those are all creative contributions. A tool like this
| one converts an image into bones, which I don't think has
| a creative element. It also has a bunch of pre-baked
| animations of those bones, which are neat, and do have a
| creative element.
|
| Is that enough? I don't know.
|
| Let's take this to an extreme. In the early '00s, there
| was a popular video (an early meme) of a pair of stick
| figures having a rather fancy fight. Most of the work was
| in the rather comedic body language. If I replaced those
| stick figures with something my child drew, it'd still be
| /mostly/ the original work. Simply replacing a stick
| figure with a child's drawing doesn't change the
| underlying work. Even if I took a little clip, say a
| neat-looking jump turning kick, I couldn't take that
| without permission.
|
| There's a line somewhere in there, and I'm not quite sure
| where it is. I don't think anyone really knows until
| there's case law.
| dls2016 wrote:
| And, to me, creating bones of a character seems a lot
| like extracting individual hits of a beat. Both allow you
| to easily re-arrange the original creation. (Let's assume
| that you own the copyright to the underlying recording in
| the ReCycle situation, so as to avoid a discussion of the
| legal implications of sampling music.)
|
| I'm sure if I dug into a professional animation
| application, I could find a dozen more analogous tools.
|
| I don't see where the legal complexity is. Not that I'm a
| lawyer, but I can't think of a single case where a tool
| to automate artistic tedium resulted in some transfer of
| copyright.
| blagie wrote:
| > And, to me, creating bones of a character seems a lot
| like extracting individual hits of a beat.
|
| I agree.
|
| > (Let's assume that you own the copyright to the
| underlying recording in the ReCycle situation, so as to
| avoid a discussion of the legal implications of sampling
| music.)
|
| And this assumption isn't valid, and it's precisely where
| the complexity comes in. The tool doesn't just create
| bones. It has a bunch of rather nice gaits which
| presumably a human artist designed to be nice to look at:
|
| - 8 dancing movements
|
| - 8 funny movements
|
| - 7 jumping movements
|
| - 9 walking movements
|
| I think those are analogous to the samples you're using
| in your example. If the sample is a generic recording of
| a piano, that's one thing. If it's Justin Bieber saying
| "Stay," that's another thing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-21 23:02 UTC)