AI-Generated content in question

[Naurthoron]

https://www.chaosium.com/blogai-art-...um-16-dec-2022
Seen this statement from Chaosium and the likeliness that other publishers follow, what is the stance of Smiteworks in the near future?
I see more and more trying to sell such pictures and sometimes not even stating the pictures were AI-generated, at it may include sales on the FG Forge at some point if not already.

[ddavison]

It's an interesting question and I think their take on it is as legitimate as anyone else's take. I don't feel confident predicting the legality of it or how the courts may interpret it, but it's a space that should continue to be watched. I recently posted some AI generated portrait images to the FG Forge. These are clearly labeled as AI generated images that we distribute for free and I link to the source.

Here are the links to our packs:
SmiteWorks AI Generated Fantasy Images - Male Portraits Pack 1

SmiteWorks AI Generated Fantasy Images - Female Portraits Pack 1

We also had to use an AI generated pack to produce content for our Art Pack Subscription because our staff artist was unavailable due to unexpected circumstances.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store...TPACKFANTASYBG

In each case, these packs took some time to set up and learn the ins and outs of the AI generation and to produce good results. In some cases, additional photoshop work was required on the images. They were produced with an understanding that these were both legal and ethical to produce. If a court rules that these are violating the work of real artists, then we will obviously remove them.

Art is something that should be supported. I view this as an extension of that, but I can also understand how some artists may feel threatened by it. SmiteWorks is very happy and proud to have a great full-time artist on our team. AI art does not threaten that position for us in the slightest. We have also paid an external artist for portrait art in our system, and we will continue to do so. I personally have a lot of art from my favorite artists framed and on display in my office and throughout my house.

Our stance on AI generated art is this:
AI art generation is a new space and the laws surrounding it may be lagging behind. If you produce any AI generated art, you should closely follow any legislation in your region that may govern its use. If you produce art with AI programs, you should clearly label it in your description and include a link to any license for its use. Artwork that is generated to look like other works of art runs the risk of violation of copyright regardless of whether it was AI generated or generated by an actual artist. You are personally responsible for any work that you post or distribute.

[Naurthoron]

Thanks Doug!

[Ulric]

I have successfully used Midjourney to create art that wasn't already included with a purchased adventure. I have considered offering my Midjourney art for free so other GMs could use it for their adventures. I have a paid license and according to Midjourney I own all Assets I create with the Service. I think Smiteworks approach to this issue is on target.

[Mephisto]

I recently heard an interesting podcast about the matter from a large computer mag over here in Germany. Basically, the AI is looking at thousands and millions of pictures, but they generate them based on their neural network. It's like asking someone to look at a Picasso and ask him to recreate one. As long as you don't claim it to be a Picasso, you would be fine. And an interesting detail: German copyright law protects the work of a human, therefore AI pictures are free to use and don't carry a copyright as they weren't produced by a human being.

[ddavison]

I recently heard an interesting podcast about the matter from a large computer mag over here in Germany. Basically, the AI is looking at thousands and millions of pictures, but they generate them based on their neural network. It's like asking someone to look at a Picasso and ask him to recreate one. As long as you don't claim it to be a Picasso, you would be fine. And an interesting detail: German copyright law protects the work of a human, therefore AI pictures are free to use and don't carry a copyright as they weren't produced by a human being.

That is a good point. Anyone else can recreate the same exact image with AI and reuse it. Redistributing it is also probably allowed as-is. That is something to keep in mind.

[Naurthoron]

Another way to see it (likely the copied artist point of view) is that the AI basing itself on his and other artists art is creating a derivative of his intellectual property.
You could argue a comparison with photoshoping an artist picture and claiming it is a new piece of art and selling the NFT (trust me some people are doing this).
What about taking a FG commercial module, changing some part of it, or mixing several modules into another one, I am sure Smiteworks would not be happy with it.

It is not black and white and the viewpoint will differ depending on if you are the artist considering being deprived of some part of your intellectual property or the guy generating the AI content and making money out of it.
Don't forget that at some point if the artists stop sharing for free / advertisement thier portfolio, the IA content generator will be unable to work without original pictres it relies on...

Food for thoughts....

[Nylanfs]

My opinion is largely this, There are art schools where people learn art, from other well known artists works and technique's. Aside from the ones where it's altering and combining the actual images together, the ones that are actually using machine learning to understand what somebody means visually "A bowl of fruit in a wooden bowl on a pedestal next to a window, in the style of Rembrandt" is literally no different than a human student learning to do the same thing.

[Valyar]

Chaosium already published statement on this (and was followed by Stygian Fox in similar spirit): https://www.chaosium.com/blogai-art-...m-16-dec-2022/)

I expect more publishers to follow suit. This is good and bad, as it impacts different groups - publishers, artists and small creators.

[dogfisc]

My opinion is largely this, There are art schools where people learn art, from other well known artists works and technique's. Aside from the ones where it's altering and combining the actual images together, the ones that are actually using machine learning to understand what somebody means visually "A bowl of fruit in a wooden bowl on a pedestal next to a window, in the style of Rembrandt" is literally no different than a human student learning to do the same thing.

Except that the art used in those schools is almost certainly no longer covered by copyright. Anything created after 1977 is (and yes, there are probably exceptions to both, because copyright is stupidly complicated).