AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

(this is not the art in question)​

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The hysterics over AI imagery are constant. It is not theft.

When you are paying an artist to produce original work and they instead use AI to produce their work, I would actually argue that is a kind of theft.

 

[J.Quondam]

They didn't name the artist. There is no accusation.

To make this not "one-sided", they would have to name the artist, which could bring a lot of harm to that person. Perhaps deservedly, but I respect them avoiding that situation.

It's not screwy. You're going to see a lot more news items like this as we coast into 2024 and beyond. The use of AI in art has exploded in recent years and accelerated even more in 2023. It's controversial, and gets some folks really upset. It's wise for companies to get ahead of this sort of thing, and communicate that to their fans/customers. And, within our small community here, it's news.

A lot of artists and creators are using AI to create all sorts of art, including RPG games. Some are doing it to cut corners, some to save money, others because they love being on the forefront of exploring new technology and techniques. And a growing number of fans are becoming aware and are loudly unhappy with the trend.

You are engaging in conspiracy-theory style thinking, like somehow this is a publicity stunt by Nightfall Games. Occam's Razor, it is what it is, a small company updating fans on the progress of their latest game, and discussing an art issue they've run into. No more, no less.

We only need to hear from the artist if they are directly named and accused. Which hasn't happened.

It absolutely is "one-sided," by definition; and yes, they absolutely are making an serious, personal accusation that someone both used AI and lied about it, but who apparently continues to deny doing it. I mean, why mention any of that to backers, instead of "We had a problem with an artist who submitted AI generated art. We're serious about our no-AI policy, so it'll take about X more weeks to replace those pieces. Thanks for your patience." And the company has also chosen not to name the accused artist for whatever reason, despite the seriousness and despite the possibility the artist could still be outed in some other way, which threatens to reignite the mess at some point in the future.

Speculating why they do what they do would be conspiracy theorist thinking, but pointing it out is not. So yeah, Occam's Razor tells us to take the statement at face value, which is fair enough; we've got no other choice, after all. That doesn't make the statement any less provocative, unprofessional, or screwy.

Fortunately, it's a small company trying to do right by its backers, so good luck to them. Hopefully, too, the artist in question doesn't go on to cheat another small publishing house in the same way. But in the absence of more info, the industry will just have to trust that doesn't happen.

 

[J.Quondam]

When you are paying an artist to produce original work and they instead use AI to produce their work, I would actually argue that is a kind of theft.

Yes, indeed. IANAL, but it sounds like outright fraud if the no-AI expectation was in the contract. That's serious, and if true, the company hopefully is doing something to hold the artist accountable.

 

[Morrus]

The hysterics over AI imagery are constant. It is not theft.

Oh well, now we know. Thanks!

If only we’d had you here to smugly solve this industry-wide, no, industries-wide problem earlier.

I wish I was as clever as you.

 

[J.Quondam]

According to David Holz, the founder of MidJourney, it absolutely is. Well, he didn't he was stealing word for word, but he did say MJ uses and includes in its generation millions of pieces of art without permission or consent.

So yeah, basically theft.

In US courts at least, these consent issues are being framed in lawsuits mainly as copyright violations, not theft, iirc.

 

[Scribe]

Overall, just like how ChatGPT isn't taking our literal words and stitching them together

Not sure if this is what you mean, but we have another (several) thread around here which showcases how ChatGPT ripped whole sections out of the PHB, verbatim.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I do not care what Holz said, nor do I care what one particular model does. Overall, just like how ChatGPT isn't taking our literal words and stitching them together, AI Image generators are not taking literal images and collaging them into something new. It replicates patterns it sees and produces what we think it wants us to see, which is why sometimes you will see signatures pop up. But it is not theft, and the only argument for it being theft is ultimately rooted in a (valid) fear of losing one's commercial purpose -- the production of art.

I’m just gonna keep assuming the founder of Midjourney knows more about how AI art works than you, so thanks. The guy who created the program admits he took other people’s art without permission and uses that art in the final results, so…

 

[Mercador]

It will be incredibly difficult to discern AI content from human content before long.

 

[MGibster]

And some artists refuse to provide WIP (I recall Dyson Logos saying he would be insulted if someone asked him for a WIP). I've gotten to a point where I've significantly reduced the number of open calls I do, and instead go back to artists I know and can trust. Which makes it harder for new artists to break into the hobby if we're all doing that now.

I suspect showing your work, like my math teacher insisted, might become the norm.

 

[Morrus]

Irony aside, as a publisher (especially as an Indie publisher), it's getting harder and harder to detect what is AI or not. WIP don't always help. And some artists refuse to provide WIP (I recall Dyson Logos saying he would be insulted if someone asked him for a WIP). I've gotten to a point where I've significantly reduced the number of open calls I do, and instead go back to artists I know and can trust. Which makes it harder for new artists to break into the hobby if we're all doing that now.

That's a weird arrangement. Artists we work with provide sketches, which get feedback, before moving on to the next stage. That's pretty much standard operating procedure in companies small and large.

So no, we're not all doing that now. We wouldn't work with artists who refused to work with us on the piece. I suspect that's fairly common.