Level Up (A5E) 'AI' Update to the Level Up Compatibility Logo License

[Rebel Mage]

I would sincerely love to support artists, but the conversion I am making is free for the community and I cannot afford to pay artists. Can I still use AI-generated images, or is that a no-no? Again, the conversion I am doing is free... no donations, etc.

Could you use art in the public domain, or creative commons art? That way, you don't have to step into that potentially immoral area that could have people turning away from your creations.

 

[Morrus]

Sorry, I should have read the license before asking. In reality, I will not being placing the LU logo on it, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on toes.

If you're not using the LU compatibility logo, the Level Up Compatibility Logo License doesn't apply to you.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

Could you use art in the public domain, or creative commons art? That way, you don't have to step into that potentially immoral area that could have people turning away from your creations.

Without getting into a back-and-forth on this topic, the fact that A.I. (or, at least, large language models) are here is a reality. I know most folks (myself included) are desparately holding onto the way of life we all are used to; however, to state that it is immoral to use such technology for an item that is a passion project never to be sold is a bit extreme.

I am a professor of mathematics, and I see terrible and ingenius uses of technologies such as ChatGPT quite often. The lazy student who is just trying to pass a class often uses such software (and apps like PhotoMath) to give a false sense of knowledge. These students inevitably fail due to their ignorance and lack of knowledge. The creative student uses it to augment their learning (creating sample quizzes, exams, homework, etc.) or to engage with alternative learning methods. The knowledge-base used by such software is immense and "borrows" from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of authors and mathematicians throughout history. Are either of these approaches "immoral" despite using the knowledge-base of many authors to supplement or augment their work? I would argue no.

Many folks who argue that using "A.I." to generate content (images in this case) is immoral often forget or ignore the uncountable instances in their life when they have leaned heavily on someone else's work (whether that be written, artwork, etc.) without citation. Think about A5E - the vast majority of the content is "borrowed" from the works of many other authors (in addition to WotC); however, we rejoice at the modifications set forth by these creators despite the fact that they are doing the analogue of what Dall-E does digitally - taking an original work and modifying to meet specialized needs.

I wholeheatedly agree that copying an artist's work and using it in content you are selling or claiming it as your own is completely immoral; however, any artist will admit that their style is influenced and built on the backs of generations of artists. None of these modern artists are called immoral for generating artwork based on their influences. The difference, I think, is "brush to canvas." We excuse the artist who emulates their master or influences because the artist is putting "effort" into their creation; however, we villainize the citizen who admires a certain style but who does not have the artistic fluency to make such an emulation.

I don't know what the future holds, but I hope that there are people (like yourself) who are passionate enough about the orignality of human-created art to keep the artistic community afloat for generations. When movies came out, I am certain that stage actors had a similar crisis and, while not as popular as it was back then, stage craft is still alive today.

 

[Morrus]

Without getting into a back-and-forth on this topic, the fact that A.I. (or, at least, large language models) are here is a reality. I know most folks (myself included) are desparately holding onto the way of life we all are used to; however, to state that it is immoral to use such technology for an item that is a passion project never to be sold is a bit extreme.

I am a professor of mathematics, and I see terrible and ingenius uses of technologies such as ChatGPT quite often. The lazy student who is just trying to pass a class often uses such software (and apps like PhotoMath) to give a false sense of knowledge. These students inevitably fail due to their ignorance and lack of knowledge. The creative student uses it to augment their learning (creating sample quizzes, exams, homework, etc.) or to engage with alternative learning methods. The knowledge-base used by such software is immense and "borrows" from tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of authors and mathematicians throughout history. Are either of these approaches "immoral" despite using the knowledge-base of many authors to supplement or augment their work? I would argue no.

Many folks who argue that using "A.I." to generate content (images in this case) is immoral often forget or ignore the uncountable instances in their life when they have leaned heavily on someone else's work (whether that be written, artwork, etc.) without citation. Think about A5E - the vast majority of the content is "borrowed" from the works of many other authors (in addition to WotC); however, we rejoice at the modifications set forth by these creators despite the fact that they are doing the analogue of what Dall-E does digitally - taking an original work and modifying to meet specialized needs.

I wholeheatedly agree that copying an artist's work and using it in content you are selling or claiming it as your own is completely immoral; however, any artist will admit that their style is influenced and built on the backs of generations of artists. None of these modern artists are called immoral for generating artwork based on their influences. The difference, I think, is "brush to canvas." We excuse the artist who emulates their master or influences because the artist is putting "effort" into their creation; however, we villainize the citizen who admires a certain style but who does not have the artistic fluency to make such an emulation.

I don't know what the future holds, but I hope that there are people (like yourself) who are passionate enough about the orignality of human-created art to keep the artistic community afloat for generations. When movies came out, I am certain that stage actors had a similar crisis and, while not as popular as it was back then, stage craft is still alive today.

While I'm not going to revisit the AI art ethics debate for a thousandth time, I will be clear and say that we do not subscribe to the argument that AI art is merely 'inspired' by others, we believe our artist friends, colleagues, and freelancers when they say otherwise, and we support them. I have nothing to add further to the discussion.

 

[Timespike]

I'd also like to throw in that there is an enormous amount of reasonably-priced commercial stock art out there that you can use for your RPG projects (indeed, there are dozens of artists making such art for exactly that purpose). In the entire history of Purple Martin Games, I have commissioned one piece of art. Every single one of the other images in my products are either public domain or otherwise free art (a tiny minority) or commercial stock art from places like DrivethruRPG's Publisher Resources section or similar places (the vast majority).

Some artists license on a per-work basis (in other words, if you want to reuse the same image in a different book down the line, you have to buy it again) but a surprising number have a "buy it once, use it forever" policy. Fat Goblin Games and Purple Duck Games in particular have this latter policy.

 

[TheDungeonMathster]

I'd also like to throw in that there is an enormous amount of reasonably-priced commercial stock art out there that you can use for your RPG projects (indeed, there are dozens of artists making such art for exactly that purpose). In the entire history of Purple Martin Games, I have commissioned one piece of art. Every single one of the other images in my products are either public domain or otherwise free art (a tiny minority) or commercial stock art from places like DrivethruRPG's Publisher Resources section or similar places (the vast majority).

Some artists license on a per-work basis (in other words, if you want to reuse the same image in a different book down the line, you have to buy it again) but a surprising number have a "buy it once, use it forever" policy. Fat Goblin Games and Purple Duck Games in particular have this latter policy.

Thanks for the info! I will look into those resources.