D&D General Plagiarised D&D art

[Deset Gled]

I hunted down a pdf copy of the book, and found that it doesn't give credit to anyone for the dragon drawing. Here's a copy and paste from the acknowledgements:

"140 The Bridgeman Art Library: Bibliotheque des Arts Decoratifs, Paris, France/ Archives Charmet (t). 141 Alamy Images: The London Art Archive (t). Robbie Jack Photography: (c). 143 Alamy Images: Pat Behnke (br). Corbis: KazumasaTakahashi / amanaimages (tl). Getty Images: Tim Rand (bl)."

The dragon images was on page 142. At a quick glance, the book uses this style of line art on a number of pages, but doesn't attribute most of it to anyone. Conversely, they seem to be pretty thorough on their photos. Here's what the book says at the end of the book for all unaccredited images:

"All other images © Dorling Kindersley For further information see: www. dkimages.com"

DKimages now seems to be a part of Alamy.

 

[Jahydin]

@Jadeite
That is some incredible detective work right there, good job!

That said, they look pretty distinct from one another despite the obvious tracing to get the outline. Lazy and unprofessional for sure, but not enough for a case of plagiarism right?

I mean, Green Day hasn't been sued for similar "musical tracing" yet...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really see the societal benefit in employing artists or accountants for things that computers can do better. TBH I think society as a whole would be better off if those people moved on to something in higher demand that machines and computers can't do .... perhaps making/programming the machines.

"I don't see the point of employing someone who spent 10+ years developing their skills with a particular task that computers can fake by copying the work produced by other humans with 10+ years of skill. They should just switch to a job with zero intersection with their current skill set, one they may not even be suited for at all. Sure, they'll just be unemployed and unemployable for a decade or more, who cares? Technology marches on, get with the program."

 

[Umbran]

Of course there is an ethical issue with Disney doing so.

So, with respect, I classify the problem a bit differently. It isn't all "ethics".

Actors and writers just had a massive strike partially over that very issue. The contracts of those artists did not at all contemplate this usage.

First - I am exceedingly happy that actors and writers got the deals they got. If they hadn't, I'd have a hefty issue with media in the future.

I need to separate the issues of actors and writers here.

For actors: I find the production of likeness or performance of a particular individual without their express consent on the particular performance to be problematic. Like, if they give us a computer de-aged Luke Skywalker, I think Mark Hamill (or, in the future, his estate) should have right to review and sign off on the particular performance that makes it into the work. I think the right to sign away rights to likeness in perpetuity should not exist. It becomes impossible to tell the difference between the generated performance and one the person gave - this is a matter of human identity and human consent - human rights of a real person. That's an ethical issue, yes.

For writing and art, though, not so much. The remixing of generative AI do not leave us with the identity ethics issue. Here, is more simply a copyright issue. Holding the copyright to a work generally includes right to use that work to produce derivative works. So, if someone holds those rights, and wants to use generative AI to create a derivative work... I'm sorry, but that's okay.

The basic ethical question is whether they hold the rights to the data in the training set, not in whether they use human workers going forward.

We are (probably) all currently wearing garments of fabric made of machine-made thread that was woven or knitted into cloth by machine. I don't hear you all complaining that they didn't use manual labor of human craftspeople/artists with manually operated spinning wheels and looms to make the fabric of your clothes. Your cars and your computers and many/most of hte objects you use and handle on a day-to-day basis are made with lots of automated machinery, instead of human artisans. And nobody seems to be complaining about the plight of buggy-whip makers.

Automating work is not, in general, an ethical failing. It is an inevitable result of creating new technology, and companies do not owe workers jobs in perpetuity. Our economies need to be able to use technology we develop. If you don't want us to use new technology, make the argument that we should stop developing new technology, and how we should eschew the increases in human welfare those advances bring, even though it means some jobs are lost, and replaced with different jobs.

Not using human artists for these works, and what tools those artists get to use, is an issue of art and culture, not of ethics.

Because it means their own art is going to be used to put them out of their jobs. That is a huge ethical issue for Disney artists.

With respect, I am quite sure that the contracts of Disney artists make their contributions "work for hire", and they do not own the art any more.

 

[Scribe]

I don't really see the societal benefit in employing artists or accountants for things that computers can do better.

Well you see, 'artists' are you friends, your neighbors. They have potentially partners, children, families. They are in your community. They are spending money in your stores. They are contributing perhaps to your society, in real ways.

A computer, will never be a friend, be there for your kids sports team, or contribute in a meaningful way to the ongoing maintenance of the social fabric which most of us in the West, have benefited from.

Thats what is really at stake here. Are you interested in saving a few bucks, or slowing the ongoing rot of our society?

 

[Mistwell]

So, with respect, I classify the problem a bit differently. It isn't all "ethics"...

For writing and art, though, not so much. The remixing of generative AI do not leave us with the identity ethics issue...

With respect, I am quite sure that the contracts of Disney artists make their contributions "work for hire", and they do not own the art any more.

You appear unaware of a series of legal battles underway right now, which yes does involve ethical (and legal) issues and the failure of Disney to pay artists royalties for derivative uses. See for example. It's not all work-for-hire, there are a lot of companies Disney bought and they didn't all operate the same, and a lot of royalties are involved with many artists and their contracts acquired in those acquisitions. And yes, I think if AI were anticipated as a use of some art done in those non-work-for-hire contracts, it would have been included in the royalties as well, and there are a lot of ethical and legal quandaries involved with that topic right now.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yep. There's a long tradition of this in the hobby. If you think that's bad, you should read up on the early days of TSR's D&D art and the comic books they plagiarized from.

Well, don't go looking at the Marvel ... ahem, OD&D art from the 1974 books.

(And ignore the references to hobbits, ents....)

Yes, other publishers, including TSR back in the day, also plagiarized art.

And?

OP is simply pointing out plagiarism in an RPG book TODAY. The fact that others have done, does not lessen or excuse it in the least.

And DK is a huge publisher that has been active for decades. Likely, this isn't deliberate on DK's part, but due to an ethically challenged artist and/or art director.

 

[Dire Bare]

You might want to make it clearer who plagarised from whom in the OP! Because the DK one is a 70s-looking line drawing, I assumed that was the original and the D&D book had traced it for some reason (while also adding a bunch of details and shading that made me wonder why they bothered...).

I'm still unclear as to who has plagiarized from who.

Huh?

OP is obvious. The plagiarized image is from the DK book "Myths and Legends", traced from an image in the 2000 D&D Monster Manual.

The plagiarized image DOES look like crap artwork from the 70s, but is actually crap, traced artwork from the 2000s.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Huh?

OP is obvious. The plagiarized image is from the DK book "Myths and Legends", traced from an image in the 2000 D&D Monster Manual.

The plagiarized image DOES look like crap artwork from the 70s, but is actually crap, traced artwork from the 2000s.

The OP makes no mention of when the the first book mentioned was published or what the second book is which makes it hard to know which way the plagiarism goes.

 

[Dire Bare]

Or why not give the details to the copyright holder and let them decide what to do about it?

OP can still do that, or perhaps someone who's come across this thread. Or multiple someones.

I'm sure WotC would love to know, I'm also sure DK would like to know as well . . . assuming the plagiarism was not intentional on the part of the publisher, but rather on the artist.

What exactly is wrong with the OP? They found an image that they feel is plagiarized from a D&D book, and decided to start a conversation about it on a D&D fan site.