WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[Charlaquin]

I think there’s also 2 questions there.

Legally is it currently fair use?
Should it be fair use?

Also true! I think the first one is yet to be settled, but I’m definitely of the opinion that the answer to the second is no.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree! To be clear, I am making no claims about 1, and arguing that the answer to 2 is “it’s not, and compensation should be negotiated between the artist and whoever is training the AI.”

Why should "compensation be negotiated" a second time after such a thing was already done?

 

[Charlaquin]

Why should "compensation be negotiated" a second time after such a thing was already done?

Huh? When was this hypothetical negotiation done?

 

[tetrasodium]

Huh? When was this hypothetical negotiation done?

Seriously? Just going to deny the terms of use allowing it & free hosting given in exchange? Are we talking "Pretend that isn't objectively factually true & call for something new" for purposes of discussion?

 

[Charlaquin]

Seriously? Just going to deny the terms of use allowing it & free hosting given in exchange? Are we talking "Pretend that isn't objectively factually true & call for something new" for purposes of discussion?

Are you talking about terms of use of image hosting sights like Pinterest and DeviantArt? We’ve been over this, “maintain Pinterest” =/= “train Dall-E”

 

[tetrasodium]

Are you talking about terms of use of image hosting sights like Pinterest and DeviantArt? We’ve been over this, “maintain Pinterest” =/= “train Dall-E”

You don't have to like it but it happened & it's not reasonable to just pretend otherwise simply because it causes difficulty presenting it. You are quoting a two words from an entire section of the ToS titled "more simply put" that tries to summarize the entire section above it without legalese to aid in understanding. That's not how it works & doesn't solve your problem of needing to justify why everyone should go back to square one as if it didn't happen.

​

 

[Charlaquin]

You don't have to like it but it happened & it's not reasonable to just pretend otherwise simply because it causes difficulty presenting it. You are quoting a two words from an entire section of the ToS titled "more simply put" that tries to summarize the entire section above it without legalese to aid in understanding. That's not how it works & doesn't solve your problem of needing to justify why everyone should go back to square one as if it didn't happen.

I’m not pretending anything didn’t happen, I simply disagree that the terms and conditions you linked actually say you agree to allow anything you post on the site to be used to train image generation algorithms.

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m not pretending anything didn’t happen, I simply disagree that the terms and conditions you linked actually say you agree to allow anything you post on the site to be used to train image generation algorithms.

Is that...
A: your professional opinion as a lawyer?
B: your professional opinion as a lawyer specialized in contract & copyright law?
C: A completely unsupported point you'd like to continue with for purposes of discussion?
D: Something else you didn't specify & can elaborate on.

It seems that you want to continue with both your personal opinion accepted as fact and do so while presenting a position that paints the service providers & ai projects as if they acted with wanton disregard for the law. That's an unreasonable position built upon a pretty serious point of contention that is strongly not in your favor.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is that...
A: your professional opinion as a lawyer?
B: your professional opinion as a lawyer specialized in contract & copyright law?
C: A completely unsupported point you'd like to continue with for purposes of discussion?
D: Something else you didn't specify & can elaborate on.

It seems that you want to continue with both your personal opinion accepted as fact and do so while presenting a position that paints the service providers & ai projects as if they acted with wanton disregard for the law. That's an unreasonable position built upon a pretty serious point of contention that is strongly not in your favor.

My dude, this is a casual discussion on a gaming forum. I have no professional opinion on the matter and if I did this wouldn’t really be the appropriate place for it. I present my opinion as my own, for the purposes of discussion, not as a claim of fact, and I am most certainly not accusing anyone of illegal activity.

 

[Mecheon]

Seriously? Just going to deny the terms of use allowing it & free hosting given in exchange? Are we talking "Pretend that isn't objectively factually true & call for something new" for purposes of discussion?

Hang on, are we just ignoring that 90% of uploads to Pintrist aren't done by the image owner?

Like, I can find most of the D&D 3E and Pathfinder artworks on there and I can sure tell you, they sure weren't uploaded by WotC or Pathfinder. Pointing to a TOS is kind of pointless when what people know about Pintrist is that it just, is basically a piracy website if what you're specifically pirating is images.