Does the term "Non-AI License" refer only to the 3D model or also to rendered images?

I hope you do not take my ideas as a personal assault (they are not), I’m reacting to a movement that is trowing copyright into the trash bin. The legal framework is broken so we can only rely on keeping the ethical norms up ourselves (if we want to keep something of copyright alive).

My clear answer to your question would be “no AI” also apply to rendered images (mp4, png, etc.). The terms say, quote<<“Licenses marked with "no AI" tag do not permit “Product use” for machine learning or training of neural network models, including generative AI models>> end quote.

I believe “product use” means product use, the use can be whatever, e.g. decompose the data (product) to other format, render/rasterize, voxelize, etc. Non of these data resulting from the use can enter a training dataset or enter generative AI models.

(I would argue that is when the work is still recognizable when incorporated in a scene and even more certainly when it is standing on its own)

I also believe this would have been common sense a few years ago, but some companies decided to start an infinite public discourse about fair versus unfair use and made international copyright law a moving target. They also keep adding all sorts of reasons to the discourse so it can go on indefinitely (how they like it). So now when someone says, pleas do not use my work this or that way, it seems not that common sense anymore to honor it. That is why the question on top of this post sounded like nails scratching on a chalkboard to me and it probably colors my comments here so don’t take it personal.

I hope my comments (buzzing with some frustration) somehow wake readers and prompt them on reflecting on how this can possibly get to a positive outcome?

In few months from now (maybe year tops) the only thing one is going to need is images and then this CGTrader repository is basically free to download, just copy paste the presentation images into an AI and there you have the 3D model, the only thing left holding this back is (fading) common sense.

Keep in mind that copyright does not apply only to the 3D model/source file.
The 3D model/file is a protected work on its own, the design it is depicting is another also protected work on its own, so a 3D model usually has this two layers of copyright on it.

So one can render an image and deem it not to be the 3D source model anymore and be right, yet still not own the copyright to the design depicted in the rendered image. The character design would need to be rendered unrecognizable in order to call it a new work and claim ownership and be free to do whatever with it (until then, terms of original artist do still apply on part of the image).

If you upload that image/video to AI image/video services, those will undoubtedly use it to train their next models. According to unjust laws (that’s my personal view) they are allowed to do that even with no consent of any artists (on premise of out dated “fair use doctrine”).

Apart from that, if someone mentions “No AI training” in the terms of use, then most likely that person does not want his/her work be used (fair or unfair) for training an AI model. This perhaps also implies one should honor and safeguard their terms and wishes.

Consider the following in this (for now) far-west of AI copyright law!
You might “probably” safely disregard the wishes of someone who objects to their work being used in AI training. The question is, would you be such a disregarding person, or perhaps only honor the wishes of someone else when that someone can make you pay for not doing so?
Why wait until law catches up with unjust and use common sense right off the bad?

We can honor the wishes of another person in hopes they do so evenly strongly with regards to our own wishes, but that’s an individual choice to make.

Absolutely. The AI is a grey zone and there are a lot of tricks.
I had already contacted general support, but they told me to contact the authors directly.
Maybe because they couldn't answer me a legal question. I contacted the authors, but they didn't answer me. Not even to say "I don't know!"
Now I'll try to send an email to the legal office. If I have any answers, he will let you know here.

I think your best bet for most reliable answer is to contact the support. They're the most qualified to explain the nuances of licensing. If you do reach out, please share a brief summary of their response, as this might be beneficial to others who might have similar questions.