AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Lanefan]

Not really true. Either way, not the point. The point is that there are tons of high quality professional level stock art options out there.

Indeed, and I can spend days looking through them and not find anything near what I might want at the moment. Never mind a fair bit of so-called "stock" fantasy art is riddled with watermarks that spoil the image.

Also, what are the rules around taking a piece of stock art and modifying it to be closer to what's desired? (trivial example: a stock character portrait of an Elf with white hair, but I want the hair to be yellow-blonde so I digitally add some colour - legal, not legal, or does anyone care?)

 

[VHawkwinter]

what are the rules around taking a piece of stock art and modifying it to be closer to what's desired? (trivial example: a stock character portrait of an Elf with white hair, but I want the hair to be yellow-blonde so I digitally add some colour - legal, not legal, or does anyone care?)

I think that depends on the contract terms under how you acquired the stock images. If they're CC0, you can do whatever you want to them, of course.

So it depends on the site / artist/ photographer/whomever you got them from.

 

[Morrus]

Also, what are the rules around taking a piece of stock art and modifying it to be closer to what's desired? (trivial example: a stock character portrait of an Elf with white hair, but I want the hair to be yellow-blonde so I digitally add some colour - legal, not legal, or does anyone care?)

When you buy stock art it comes with a license. The 'rules' are whatever is in that license. That tells you what you are or are not licensed to do with the art. You should check the license before purchasing stock art, but most are fine with you modifying it.

 

[Morrus]

Never mind a fair bit of so-called "stock" fantasy art is riddled with watermarks that spoil the image.

It's not when you buy it. The previews have watermarks so you don't just download the preview instead of buying it.

 

[Mecheon]

Really? That's your takeaway?

I mean, that's what you said. I just dragged it out to examine it a bit more.

Its a loaded definition of 'art' that not only excludes just about every actual piece of art in human history done in the past, but is being done specifically to bias towards a more pro-AI basis. So, yeah, nah mate, not buying it.

 

[Lanefan]

If your business model can't support paying people for their labor, you shouldn't be in business.

And for those who aren't doing it as a business? Who want to produce, let's say, homebrew (and human-written!) adventure modules as a hobby then ideally release them directly into the public domain at zero cost to the end user?

Not everyone does things just for profit.

For those people like me who ain't no good at art but who would like some art for their own games and-or public-domain releases, AI art is perfect as a) it's free and b) it can't have copyright on it.

 

[Mecheon]

And for those who aren't doing it as a business? Who want to produce, let's say, homebrew (and human-written!) adventure modules as a hobby then ideally release them directly into the public domain at zero cost to the end user?

Not everyone does things just for profit.

For those people like me who ain't no good at art but who would like some art for their own games and-or public-domain releases, AI art is perfect as a) it's free and b) it can't have copyright on it.

I mean, if you're not doing it as a business then you don't really need art or can just grab... Whatever from around the internet for it instead. You don't need to worry about the legality of grabbing old artwork from the old 3.5e wizard archives and putting that on something

Per the optics of AI art versus other stuff, I'd genuinely recommend like, grabbing a picture of a NES era Final Fantasy enemy and using that instead of AI artwork though, because the reputation of AI art is not great and people will skip over it due to the AI artwork. Slap in the ol' "Oh, Square got in legal trouble" FF1 Beholder on something, though? Completely different.

 

[Lanefan]

You're still merely a commissioner, not an artist. All you are doing is replicating the conversations someone who commissions work has with a real artist.

Not really.

If I ever commission an art piece for anything 'professional' it'll be because I have a precise image in my head that I don't have the talent or knowhow to put on a page (or screen). Which means, I'll want the artist to effectively be no more than a processor, taking my precise and detailed instructions and reproducing them as exactly as possible - which would likely bore said artist to tears.

The initial creative thought that generates the image in the first place comes from me.

It's an absurd claim that somehow the founders of the big LLMs have managed to convince you is truth.

Meh - I felt the same way about art long before AI came along: I know exactly what I want done, I just don't know how to do it. AI just provides a different and more conveniently-accessible processor, at least for now.

 

[bedir than]

Not really.

If I ever commission an art piece for anything 'professional' it'll be because I have a precise image in my head that I don't have the talent or knowhow to put on a page (or screen). Which means, I'll want the artist to effectively be no more than a processor, taking my precise and detailed instructions and reproducing them as exactly as possible - which would likely bore said artist to tears.

this proves that it is the exact same technique as commissioning by the way

it's not you being the artist -- the absurdist claim that LLM proponents keep making that requires the redefinition of words like "art"

 

[Waller]

Really? That's your takeaway?

His takeaway from what you said is... what you said. It's pretty hard to talk to people who gaslight you about what they actually said, even their words are literally right there.