Multiple "AI Art" Updates and Controversies in Tabletop Gaming

Three news stories this week came out about algorithmic generation aka "AI Art" in the tabletop gaming industry.

BackerKit announced that effective October 4, no project will be allowed with any writing or art assets that were entirely created by algorithmic generation aka “AI”. From the blog post:

At BackerKit, our team is passionate about people’s passions. For ten years, we’ve supported creators in their journey to launch projects and build thriving creative practices and businesses. We’ve developed deep relationships and respect for the people who breathe life into crowdfunding projects, and we are committed to defending their well-being on our platform.

That’s why we are announcing a new policy that aims to address growing concerns regarding ownership of content, ethical sourcing of data, and compensation for the process of creating content. […]

As part of this consideration, BackerKit has committed to a policy that restricts the use of AI-generated content in projects on our crowdfunding platform.

This policy goes into effect on October 4, 2023.

[…] This policy emphasizes that projects on BackerKit cannot include content solely generated by AI tools. All content and assets must first be created by humans.

This doesn’t impact content refined with AI-assisted tools like “generative content fill” or “object replacement” (image editing software functions that help blend or replace selected portions of an image), other standard image adjustment tools (saturation, color, resolution,) or AI language tools that refine human-created text with modifications to spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Software assisted by AI, such as transcribers or video tracking technology are permitted under these guidelines. However, software with the purpose to generate content using AI would not be permitted.

The post includes image examples of what content is and is not allowed. Additionally, BackerKit will add an option to the back end for creators that will allow them to “exclude all content uploaded by our creators for their projects from AI training”. This is opt-out, meaning that by default this ban is in place and creators who want their work used for training generative algorithms must go in and specifically allow it.

This move comes alongside a pair of recent controversies in tabletop gaming. Last month, Wizards of the Coast came under fire as it was revealed a freelance artist used algorithmic generation for artwork included in Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. Wizards of the Coast quickly updated their stance on algorithmic generation with a statement that the artwork would be removed from the D&D Beyond digital copies of the book and will place new language in contracts banning the use of algorithmic generation.

This week, Gizmodo reporter Linda Codega reported that the artwork in the D&D Beyond version of Bigby Presents has now been replaced with new art. No announcement was made about the new artwork, and Gizmodo’s attempts to contact Wizards of the Coast for a statement directed them to the statement made in August. The artist who used algorithmic generation, Ilya Shkipin, has been removed from the art credits from the book, and the artwork has replaced by works by Claudio Prozas, Quintin Gleim, Linda Lithen, Daneen Wilkerson, Daarken, and Suzanne Helmigh.

Meanwhile, the largest tabletop gaming convention in Europe, Essen Spiel, recently ran into the same controversy as promotional material for the convention used algorithmically generated artwork including the convention’s official app, promotional posters, and tickets for the event.

Marz Verlag, the parent company for the convention, responded to a request for comment from Dicebreaker:

"We are aware of this topic and will evaluate it in detail after the show. Right now please understand that we cannot answer your questions at this moment, as we have a lot to do to get the show started today," said a representative for Merz Verlag.

"Regarding the questions about Meeps and timing, I can tell you quickly that the marketing campaign [containing AI artwork] has been created way before we had the idea to create a mascot. The idea of Meeps had nothing to do with the marketing campaign and vice versa."

Meeps, a board game-playing kitten and totally innocent of the controversy (because who could blame a cute kitty), is the new mascot for the convention announced this past July voted on by fans and was designed by illustrator Michael Menzel.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think you're wrong as to why they are there.
It's not a customer service position as much as a loss prevention one.
At least, at Safeway, Albertsons, Costco, WinCo, Fred Meyers, they're checking to see that carts are emptied... At Costco, they're pretty obvious about it, as they look at the receipt and the goods, and see if they're close and nothing's left in the cart; help requires waiting for them to finish checking receipts. The feel is the same at WalMart, Safeway, and Freddy's. I've never used the self check at Albertsons.

So what are old-fashioned cashiers other than loss-prevention employees?

"I shop-lift not for myself, but to make sure security guards stay employed."

 

[Morrus]

Doesn't the fact that AI Art cannot be copyrighted sort of solve the issue of it being used commercially? What company is going to want to use AI Art when anyone can then take it and use it however they want because it cannot be copyrighted? I don't see Disney or any other big studio using it. Unless they use the lobbying power to get the copyright rules changed.... again.

Ref: U.S. Copyright Office Rules A.I. Art Can't Be Copyrighted

Plenty of companies use stock art, so there's a market for it.

Disney etc. would be on the other side of it; they'll want to make sure this doesn't hurt Mickey Mouse. So if anybody is going to make an impact in how it's regulated etc, it's the big corporations who want their own brands and assets protected. We small fry would just benefit from it as a side effect.

 

[Reynard]

Practical question time: as someone embarking on a small press publishing venture after years of work for hire freelance, I have to rely on stock art until/if I have seen enough success to commission art. How do I avoid licensing stock art that was AI generated? Is there a way to test? Or do have have to assume disosure by the artist or outlet?

 

[bedir than]

Not accidentally. The AI just calculates that an image in a certain style is also statistically likely to have a certain signature. That doesn't mean that the image is plagiarized, any more than me signing this post "J.R.R.T" would mean I'm plagiarizing Tolkien.

The signature itself might count as a plagiarism, I'll give you that. You can avoid it by including "signature" as a negative prompt in most image generators.

So the default is plagiarism

Just like if you created a novel called There and Returned Again with a Bibo as its main character and signed it JRR Tolkien

 

[Art Waring]

Practical question time: as someone embarking on a small press publishing venture after years of work for hire freelance, I have to rely on stock art until/if I have seen enough success to commission art. How do I avoid licensing stock art that was AI generated? Is there a way to test? Or do have have to assume disosure by the artist or outlet?

google "ai art detectors" and you will get links to multiple free AI detectors that can spot if art was ai-generated or not. Simply drag the image in question to the detector and it tells you if it was made by a human.

These detectors are pretty good, but not perfect though. I have seen many articles stating concerns about false positives and that using some programs like free image editors or upscaling tools sometimes get detected as AI even when its all human-made.

Furthermore, I think that the detection methods are still flawed, as for example I put some of my really really old calligraphy artwork from about a decade ago (before anything close to ai was around), and some of them detect as partially (like 18%) artificial, but how can that be the case if I created the art by hand a decade ago? I am talking about my own calligraphy I did by hand on paper with a pen and then scanned digitally. The tools still need some serious refining.

As for disclosure from artists, that's another subject. IME, all the artists I have worked with recently have been completely up front about their process, and I have yet to work with one who hasn't been forthright about how they make art.

Because, as an artist, if you start to get a reputation for using ai art it may impact your career (that one who did the recent wotc thing has had their credits removed and likely wont be working for them again). As an art director I can't hire you if you don't disclose your methods.

The best way to ensure that art you commission from an artist is not ai generated is to disclose your concerns before you sign a contract. Detail your concerns over ai, as it can affect your future business venture (and their career in the industry), and request a certificate of authenticity (COA) to ensure that art you commission is genuinely human-made, and is certified by the artist that they have created works for your project that are kosher for commercial use.

Honesty is the best policy going forward.

 

[Reynard]

The best way to ensure that art you commission from an artist is not ai generated is to disclose your concerns before you sign a contract.

For clarity, I am specifically asking about acquiring stock art and avoiding using AI generated art -- because I think A LOT of new stock art is AI generated.

 

[Art Waring]

For clarity, I am specifically asking about acquiring stock art and avoiding using AI generated art -- because I think A LOT of new stock art is AI generated.

Gotcha. You can upload stock art into detectors the same as any other image right from the net.

I did hear about that happening with stock art, so its probably a good practice going forward to test any art you plan on using, stock or not.

 

[Reynard]

Gotcha. You can upload stock art into detectors the same as any other image right from the net.

I did hear about that happening with stock art, so its probably a good practice going forward to test any art you plan on using, stock or not.

I wonder how to do that prior to purchasing it.

 

[Art Waring]

I wonder how to do that prior to purchasing it.

Stock art from many stock providers give a high-res sample image (like adobe stock art), upload that to the detector before you buy (this only applies to single images).

As for stock art "bundles," well, that gets riskier as you cant get samples of all the work you are buying and I don't have a solution for that. If possible, try to contact the artist and perhaps say you are interested in their work and ask for samples.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So the default is plagiarism

No. Imitating a style isn't plagiarism.