AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

(this is not the art in question)​

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So if I find someone who is a finder or developer of another AI art program disagreeing with his stance, what happens? I just want to know before I do it, but I'll do it anyway.

I anxiously await a creator from one of the programs being used to say they do not and have not used art from artists without permission.

 

[Shardstone]

I anxiously await a creator from one of the programs being used to say they do not and have not used art from artists without permission.

What you're waiting for is not what I've stated and is not the position I've been arguing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

. The guy who created the program admits he took other people’s art without permission and uses that art in the final results, so…

So if I find someone who is a finder or developer of another AI art program disagreeing with his stance, what happens? I just want to know before I do it, but I'll do it anyway.

I anxiously await a creator from one of the programs being used to say they do not and have not used art from artists without permission.

That was the text exchange.

What you're waiting for is not what I've stated and is not the position I've been arguing.

So I'm not sure what your position is then. It seems quite clearly that I argued that the founder admits they use art without permission, and you said you would find someone who disagreed with that. So again, I anxiously await you to show someone like him who disagrees with the position that programs like MidJourney use art without permission.

I'm still waiting by the way.

 

[J.Quondam]

Fwiw, there are companies that claim their image AIs are ethically created, insofar as they train their models using only public domain, open, and/or licensed art. The two big ones I know off the top of my head are Adobe Firefly and Shutterstock AI; I assume there are other institutions working toward the same goal.
Whether one takes Big Corp™ at their word is a different question, of course.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fwiw, there are companies that claim their image AIs are ethically created, insofar as they train their models using only public domain, open, and/or licensed art. The two big ones I know off the top of my head are Adobe Firefly and Shutterstock AI; I assume there are other institutions working toward the same goal.
Whether one takes Big Corp™ at their word is a different question, of course.

What they claim and what is happening seems to be different things.

 

[J.Quondam]

What they claim and what is happening seems to be different things.

Like I said:

Whether one takes Big Corp™ at their word is a different question, of course.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The issue at stake here is not whether AI generated art is good or not. It is not even how the machine learning algorithms work. It is the uncertain legal status of AI generated artwork. Recent rulings from the US Copyright Office suggest that inclusion of materials created by generative AI in a work may place the whole work into the public domain. It doesn't matter how much additional human effort went into the work, a single AI generated image might be enough to place the Terminator franchise into the public domain. No commercial publisher will take that risk, especiallywhen working with a licenced IP. Until the legal status of works incorporating AI generated content becomes clearer, all commercial publishers will refuse to use it.

On a related - but amusing - note, this week there was a landmark ruling in the UK that inventions made with the assistance of AI are not eligible for patent or copyright protection. The ruling argued that patents can only be awarded to "natural persons". It clarified that corporations are considered "natural persons" rather than "legal persons" under intellectual property law. Big pharma and the Disney corporation were worried there for a second. So AI is bad but corporations are good? William Gibson predicted this outcome back in 1982...

 

[J.Quondam]

Recent rulings from the US Copyright Office suggest that inclusion of materials created by generative AI in a work may place the whole work into the public domain. It doesn't matter how much additional human effort went into the work, a single AI generated image might be enough to place the Terminator franchise into the public domain.

Whoa, really? Do you have a cite? Because that's huge news if true.

Last I heard, AI images themselves were deemed by USPTO not copyrightable, but attached words and layouts are. This came from that hullabaloo late last year/early this year when someone tried to copyright a comic featuring a character resembling Zendaya. But something could have changed since then.

 

[Shardstone]

That was the text exchange.

So I'm not sure what your position is then. It seems quite clearly that I argued that the founder admits they use art without permission, and you said you would find someone who disagreed with that. So again, I anxiously await you to show someone like him who disagrees with the position that programs like MidJourney use art without permission.

I'm still waiting by the way.

Not really interested since your attitude is increasingly passive aggressive. Doesnt feel like this going on any longer will end with anything less then you making 5-6 more thinly veiled barbs or attacks. Real cringe.

 

[Art Waring]

The issue at stake here is not whether AI generated art is good or not. It is not even how the machine learning algorithms work. It is the uncertain legal status of AI generated artwork. Recent rulings from the US Copyright Office suggest that inclusion of materials created by generative AI in a work may place the whole work into the public domain. It doesn't matter how much additional human effort went into the work, a single AI generated image might be enough to place the Terminator franchise into the public domain. No commercial publisher will take that risk, especiallywhen working with a licenced IP. Until the legal status of works incorporating AI generated content becomes clearer, all commercial publishers will refuse to use it.

On a related - but amusing - note, this week there was a landmark ruling in the UK that inventions made with the assistance of AI are not eligible for patent or copyright protection. The ruling argued that patents can only be awarded to "natural persons". It clarified that corporations are considered "natural persons" rather than "legal persons" under intellectual property law. Big pharma and the Disney corporation were worried there for a second. So AI is bad but corporations are good? William Gibson predicted this outcome back in 1982...

I have been saying this all year. News and social media are trying to convince people that these tools are going to "increase innovation and productivity", but what good are these tools (I should say toys, really) if you can't copyright anything made with them?

What exactly are these tools going to produce that is of any use to a company making a commercial product? (Given the current risks, legal uncertainty, and potential for losing your own IP).

William Gibson predicted this outcome back in 1982...

With the added caveat that in his world, people were so paranoid of AI surpassing its limitations that they had an "electromagnetic shotgun wired to their head" that was set to trigger the moment they started to behave independently. (to the best of my memory).