Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Plagiarised D&D art
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9232726" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>So, with respect, I classify the problem a bit differently. It isn't all "ethics".</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>I need to separate the issues of actors and writers here.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>human identity</em> and <em>human consent</em> - human rights of a real person. That's an ethical issue, yes.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9232726, member: 177"] So, with respect, I classify the problem a bit differently. It isn't all "ethics". 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 [I]human identity[/I] and [I]human consent[/I] - 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Plagiarised D&D art
Top