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.

 

[DataDwarf]

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

 

[Abstruse]

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

Because intellectual property law is complicated. Anything created by algorithmic generation cannot be protected under United States copyright law. However, that would only refer to the individual assets that are algorithmically generated.

The case last year involved someone attempting to copyright a comic book created through algorithmic generation. The comic book itself can still be protected under copyright because there was human creative input put into it - deciding which images to use in what format and aspect ratios in what layout on the page along with human-written text. The individual images, however, could not be copyrighted because they were algorithmically generated.

For another example, I can create a comic book using public domain images and own the copyright on that comic book. I can go through archives of 17th, 18th, and 19th century art and use it to make comics and I would own the copyright on that comic in its entirety as a comic while the images themselves would remain in the public domain.

To extrapolate into game design, if I make a roleplaying game where you play characters from the Wild West and I use real photographs of Bill Hickcock, Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, etc. as the character portraits, I don't own the rights to those photographs even though I still own the copyright on the game itself. If I made a board game about stealing famous artwork with cards printed with different works of art, I don't own the Mona Lisa or Starry Night, but I do own the game as a whole. Someone else could come and make their own art heist game or wild west RPG using the exact same images, but they couldn't make the exact same game*.

For some game designers, that's fine. They're likely to use creative commons, public domain, stock art, or artwork without an exclusive license anyway because doing work-for-hire or exclusive licensed commissions for art is far more expensive than the other options. And many game designers and publishers do exactly that. So they wouldn't care from a copyright standpoint whether the algorithmically generated art can be copyrighted or not since they wouldn't own the copyright or any artwork they used.

However, and I'm going to put this in bold for emphasis because it's something that often gets lost in these sort of discussions: "Legal" is not the same as "Ethical". There are many, many, many things that are perfectly legal to do that are terribly immoral and unethical. Just as there are many moral and ethical actions that are technically against the law. Discussions of the legality of an action and discussions of the morality of an action are two separate discussions. Even if an act is perfectly legal to do, someone who does that action can still be a complete jerk for doing it.

For example, take someone listening to music on their phone without headphones. That is perfectly legal to do, but they're still a jerk. If someone yanks the phone out of their hands, puts it on mute, and throws it back to them that is not legal but to most people would be a morally correct action.

* Not getting into the whole "you can't copyright game rules" thing because that's an entirely different complicated IP law discussion...

 

[Bill Zebub]

“Terribly Immortal” sounds like a new RPG.

 

[Abstruse]

“Terribly Immortal” sounds like a new RPG.

Isn't that just Vampire: The Masquerade?

 

[Reynard]

Because the AI is not making new art, it's plagiarising existing art. That's the core of the issue.

But that is just plain wrong, and in being wrong I don't think it helps discern things of import from which we can establish ethical standards, which is obviously super important.

LLMs don't copy anything. Instead, when the are told to do Thing A, based on their training, they apply a probability of what follows A.

We absolutely need to discuss the important issues of how generative systems are trained, but we shouldn't obfuscate the real issues by relying on imprecise and emotional terminology.

Generative AI is absolutely not going away, any more than photography might. The only way to integrate it into our creative future is to understand what it actually is and work to make sure it is ethically trained. Trying to force it back into the bottle is a fool's errand.

 

[Parmandur]

LLMs don't copy anything. Instead, when the are told to do Thing A, based on their training, they apply a probability of what follows A.

By "apply" what is happening is copying. Monkeying around with the stuff makes it more clear thst is the case. It is Mad Libs with copy-pasta of art. Just at a high bandwidth.

 

[bedir than]

LLMs don't copy anything.

and yet full creators' signatures show up in the gen AI 'art' at times

They just accidentally recreate a full signature?

 

[Abstruse]

and yet full creators' signatures show up in the gen AI 'art' at times

They just accidentally recreate a full signature?

Notice people say "that's not how it works" but then don't explain how it works, but just get insultingly dismissive? Reminds me a lot of when people would respond to criticisms of NFTs...

I could go on a long essay on how generative algorithms work, but let me try this way. Imagine it's a Ready Room scene from Star Trek: The Next Generation:

Geordi: Technobabble machine learning technobabble algorithm technobabble technobabble training database technobabble technobabble.

Picard: So it's copying an image or text from the database?

Data: Precisely. However, these algorithms copy from so many different similar sources in their databases and do so in so many individual parts that it becomes difficult to detect.

Riker: They look like original works, but it's just a bunch of copies too small for us to detect.

Troi: And because of the uncanny valley effect, we feel something is inherently off or wrong about the images.

Geordi: Even if we can't prove it.

Worf: I recommend opening fire on this algorithm with full phasers and photon torpedos.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

and yet full creators' signatures show up in the gen AI 'art' at times

They just accidentally recreate a full signature?

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.

 

[aramis erak]

There's somebody standing there for when customers have a problem at self check-out.

At least, where I live. Everywhere I have lived.

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.