Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Glory of the Giants' AI-Enhanced Art
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9090828" data-attributes="member: 7042497"><p>Very good post. I think one angle that I feel is sorely lacking is that the focus should be on the act publishing of art (and intellectual property in general) - not on the process. What someone does to produce graphics - be that person an artist, an amateur or even a hack - should not be the focus. The focus should be on:</p><p></p><p>A) Published art and text</p><p>It is a problem if someone publishes/distributes/sells art, text or imagery, that is grossly derivative or plagiarizing, to the extent that it violates intellectual property (and here the different legal framework across the world is a complicating factor). It shouldn't matter whether the production involved reproduction by human hands, "classic" software and/or AI*. If you rip off someone's work - you're doing a bad thing.</p><p></p><p>B) Software and services</p><p>It is a problem if software (desktop application or web-based service) contains copy-righted material. It is also a problem if it is capable of producing imagery which violates the intellectual property of others. You can't sell an application which reproduces such works. This is a bit more fuzzy than it seems at first. At one extreme you have "give me the full text of the book Shadow of Abracadara" at the other extreme you have a word processor, which you can use to type in the full text of a book and then store it locally on your machine. Word processors are obviously not a problem - but the point at which a tool is too good at following instructions isn't quite as easily definable as one might imagine.</p><p></p><p>C) Training data</p><p>High-quality training data for neural networks is an extremely valuable commodity. It is not hard to crawl the internet for everything and train an AI. It is very hard and very expensive to curate a collection of material (be it art, text or something else). Some websites, like say Deviant Art or certain places for people to share fan fiction - even discussion forums like this one - are very good sources of high quality training data. Companies which make use of such data must obtain the consent of the owners of the material.</p><p></p><p>D) Selling training data is not selling intellectual property</p><p>This one I think is probably the most overlooked. An artist who sells the right to use work in training data, is not selling the right to reproduce said work. Those things must be kept apart. Why would a company want training data if they are not allowed to reproduce it? Well, that's because AI tooling can, when used by humans (and in the future perhaps even autonomously), produce (or contribute to the production of) creative works. It might not be art. It might be ugly. It might be derivative. But it can be something that if done by a human would be considered legal. And therefore training data has a value in making the AI tooling better at creating such things (better might not mean quality, it could also mean other things, so consider it broadly). Artists need to retain their intellectual property rights regardless of whether they consent to their work being used for training.</p><p></p><p>Right now the focus is very much on the interplay between training data and the capacity/tendency to reproduce in a way which violates intellectual property - and defining those lines. That's an important discussion. But it's not the only discussion. And it's really important for the future livelihood of artists that this is not reduced to a question of training data and what workflows are acceptable for artists who use AI tooling.</p><p></p><p></p><p>* By AI I refer to the definition used in computer science, which covers neural networks, even if they do not possess general intelligence or cognition of any kind. I am simply using it is an umbrella term for certain types of systems, not as a claim of those systems having any particular qualities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Golroc, post: 9090828, member: 7042497"] Very good post. I think one angle that I feel is sorely lacking is that the focus should be on the act publishing of art (and intellectual property in general) - not on the process. What someone does to produce graphics - be that person an artist, an amateur or even a hack - should not be the focus. The focus should be on: A) Published art and text It is a problem if someone publishes/distributes/sells art, text or imagery, that is grossly derivative or plagiarizing, to the extent that it violates intellectual property (and here the different legal framework across the world is a complicating factor). It shouldn't matter whether the production involved reproduction by human hands, "classic" software and/or AI*. If you rip off someone's work - you're doing a bad thing. B) Software and services It is a problem if software (desktop application or web-based service) contains copy-righted material. It is also a problem if it is capable of producing imagery which violates the intellectual property of others. You can't sell an application which reproduces such works. This is a bit more fuzzy than it seems at first. At one extreme you have "give me the full text of the book Shadow of Abracadara" at the other extreme you have a word processor, which you can use to type in the full text of a book and then store it locally on your machine. Word processors are obviously not a problem - but the point at which a tool is too good at following instructions isn't quite as easily definable as one might imagine. C) Training data High-quality training data for neural networks is an extremely valuable commodity. It is not hard to crawl the internet for everything and train an AI. It is very hard and very expensive to curate a collection of material (be it art, text or something else). Some websites, like say Deviant Art or certain places for people to share fan fiction - even discussion forums like this one - are very good sources of high quality training data. Companies which make use of such data must obtain the consent of the owners of the material. D) Selling training data is not selling intellectual property This one I think is probably the most overlooked. An artist who sells the right to use work in training data, is not selling the right to reproduce said work. Those things must be kept apart. Why would a company want training data if they are not allowed to reproduce it? Well, that's because AI tooling can, when used by humans (and in the future perhaps even autonomously), produce (or contribute to the production of) creative works. It might not be art. It might be ugly. It might be derivative. But it can be something that if done by a human would be considered legal. And therefore training data has a value in making the AI tooling better at creating such things (better might not mean quality, it could also mean other things, so consider it broadly). Artists need to retain their intellectual property rights regardless of whether they consent to their work being used for training. Right now the focus is very much on the interplay between training data and the capacity/tendency to reproduce in a way which violates intellectual property - and defining those lines. That's an important discussion. But it's not the only discussion. And it's really important for the future livelihood of artists that this is not reduced to a question of training data and what workflows are acceptable for artists who use AI tooling. * By AI I refer to the definition used in computer science, which covers neural networks, even if they do not possess general intelligence or cognition of any kind. I am simply using it is an umbrella term for certain types of systems, not as a claim of those systems having any particular qualities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Glory of the Giants' AI-Enhanced Art
Top