WotC WotC: 'Artists Must Refrain From Using AI Art Generation'

After it was revealed this week that one of the artists for Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants used artificial intelligence as part of their process when creating some of the book's images, Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement via the D&D Beyond Twitter (X?) account.

The statement is in image format, so I've transcribed it below.

Today we became aware that an artist used AI to create artwork for the upcoming book, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. We have worked with this artist since 2014 and he's put years of work into book we all love. While we weren't aware of the artist's choice to use AI in the creation process for these commissioned pieces, we have discussed with him, and he will not use AI for Wizards' work moving forward. We are revising our process and updating our artist guidelines to make clear that artists must refrain from using AI art generation as part of their art creation process for developing D&D art.

-Wizards of the Coast​

Ilya Shkipin, the artist in question, talked about AI's part in his process during the week, but has since deleted those posts.

There is recent controversy on whether these illustrations I made were ai generated. AI was used in the process to generate certain details or polish and editing. To shine some light on the process I'm attaching earlier versions of the illustrations before ai had been applied to enhance details. As you can see a lot of painted elements were enhanced with ai rather than generated from ground up.

-Ilya Shlipin​

​

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If I type out your post am I copying it or recreating it? If I recreate the Apple logo myself based on how somebody describes it to me and then sell my new phone with that logo on it, am I in breach of copyright? (Yes I am).

No, you're in breach of trademark. The basic concept of an apple with a bite taken out of it i isn't protected by copyright, and neither is a signature, though using a fake logo or signature to fraudulently disguise the origin of a work may be in violation of other laws.

 

[Morrus]

No, you're in breach of trademark. The basic concept of an apple with a bite taken out of it i isn't protected by copyright, and neither is a signature, though using a fake logo or signature to fraudulently disguise the origin of a work may be in violation of other laws.

OK, that wasn’t the point, and I think you know it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

OK, that wasn’t the point, and I think you know it.

The point is that legal details matter. If something isn't illegal it doesn't matter if you dislike it, you can't stop people from doing it.

 

[Morrus]

The point is that legal details matter. If something isn't illegal it doesn't matter if you dislike it, you can't stop people from doing it.

And that, again, isn’t the point.

 

[Clint_L]

What’s the difference between copying and recreating something?

If I type out your post am I copying it or recreating it? If I recreate the Apple logo myself based on how somebody describes it to me and then sell my new phone with that logo on it, am I in breach of copyright? (Yes I am).

To me, this argument quickly devolves into semantics. Whatever the method or terminology, my signature has been copied.

Well, there are different ethical and legal implications. AI art isn’t copied directly, it’s more “in the style of,” like pastiche. Talking about the product here, I’ll address the process too.

So looking at the Frazetta example, it is perfectly legal for a human to study Frazetta’s art closely and then paint my van as closely as possible to that style, fulfilling my request for a self-portrait done in that manner.

Similarly, it is perfectly legal for you to copy my writing style. The signature complicates things because it could be seen as attempting to fraudulently attribute the art and capitalize off someone else’s identity. The human artist would know to leave it off.

I think it is doubtful that an AI generated art in the style of Frazetta would be legally problematic in itself - ie if a human had done it.

The legal sticking points seem more around the process of how the AIs are trained, which does involve copying data in the sense that every time anything on the internet is accessed it is in effect being copied. Here the distinction between fair use and commercial use gets very relevant. I’m sure Snarff can explain the many ways I am already woefully oversimplifying, but suffice to say that I think the difference between recreating a style is legally very distinct from copying.

The ethical issues are a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

And that, again, isn’t the point.

Then I'm sorry but I don't know what the point is.

 

[Morrus]

Well, there are different ethical and legal implications. AI art isn’t copied directly, it’s more “in the style of,” like pastiche.

But it is. The reproduced signatures are dead giveaways.

 

[Zardnaar]

So if an AI with right prompts can copy a signature to me that's like a forger.

If it's not doing that........

Cover band at local pub is also copying.

So for me it's a tool. Much like anything it's how you use it imho.

 

[Morrus]

Si if an AI with right prompts can copy a signature to me that's like a forger.

A DJ is a better analogy. Is the artist getting anything from the use of their music?

(In most jurisdictions, if the venue is not breaking licensing laws, yes they are).

 

[FrogReaver]

Si if an AI with right prompts can copy a signature to me that's like a forger.

If it's not doing that........

Cover band at local pub is also copying.

So for me it's a tool. Much like anything it's how you use it imho.

Do you know why cover bands can do that without any issues? Because the venues pay for license rights for songs to be played live by any cover bands.