WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[LuisCarlos17f]

I say it again. Art by AI is perfect if you want only a portrait with only one character in one pose, or for a landscapae, but the AI aren't enoughly trained for dinamic scenes with several characters. If you want a portrait of a firbolg or an aarakocra, you can't with AI, at least not yet without special files created for it.

Maybe in a future players could use VTTs to take photographies, and using special software to be used with that VTT to create 2d art, and even imitating style of artists who worked for D&D in the TSR or WOTC age.

And even if the software was enoughly advanced in the future, a work would be better if the scene was designed by a profesional artist. Something like in the comics, where an artist is the penciler and the other is the inker. Here one would be the graphic designer, and the AI to give "color" to the sketch.

It can be a help, but it shoudn't make all the work.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

does anyone have an actual link to the app?

 

[Bagpuss]

They... aren't selling the art.

Yes they are, what makes up massive parts of their books, and MtG.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass on the ground when he hopped.

Really? You have a hard time believing that someone might be using an art creation algorithmic program ethically?

 

[Charlaquin]

Really? You have a hard time believing that someone might be using an art creation algorithmic program ethically?

These programs don’t create art, they steal it. Yes, if one was made that only used seed art that was legally purchased or willingly donated by the artists, it could be ethical, but that’s pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. Might as well be talking about ethical NFTs.

 

[Clint_L]

These programs don’t create art, they steal it. Yes, if one was made that only used seed art that was legally purchased or willingly donated by the artists, it could be ethical, but that’s pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. Might as well be talking about ethical NFTs.

Hmmm...the word "steal" has legal implications and there is at least one major court case on this topic right now, though that is about one particular type of AI art, and will apply only to the US, and I am sure more cases have been or will soon be launched. These are anything but slam dunk cases, and this is going to be a very murky area of law for a long time (which IP law pertaining to originality and ownership of ideas already is, in many respects, but I know someone like Snarf could address this aspect of the situation far better).

In an ethical sense, the boundaries of theft and originality are also super, super murky when it comes to art. Virtually all art is derived from pre-existing sources - humans observe and remember, and then we bend, blend, break, and recombine. The main difference between what we do and what an AI art generator does is intentionality. But you can argue (and lawyers are arguing) that in the case of a AI such as Stable Diffusion, the intentionality is supplied by the human user.

But let's say I hire a local artist to paint a portrait of my D&D character, and do it by studying my favourite artist - maybe I'm a Frank Frazetta fan - and do it as closely as possible to that style. Is that unethical? Is that stealing? So what is the difference between that and feeding that same prompt into Stable Diffusion...or into this app (maybe; not sure exactly how this app works)?

I think there are differences in process, for sure, but in terms of ethics, let alone the law? I don't think it's as simple as just labeling all AI art theft. The AIs, prompted by humans, are creating new art that has never been seen in the world before. It is unquestionably derivative...but all art is to some degree derivative. So the answer is not going to be cut and dry.

 

[bedir than]

does anyone have an actual link to the app?

It's Photoleap

Might actually be ethical

Lightricks launches text-to-image generator

With "Text to Image" feature, Lightricks is adopting technology to help users not just edit photos or videos, but create art by leveraging to AI capabilities.

techcrunch.com

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmmm...the word "steal" has legal implications and there is at least one major court case on this topic right now, though that is about one particular type of AI art, and will apply only to the US, and I am sure more cases have been or will soon be launched. These are anything but slam dunk cases, and this is going to be a very murky area of law for a long time (which IP law pertaining to originality and ownership of ideas already is, in many respects, but I know someone like Snarf could address this aspect of the situation far better).

In an ethical sense, the boundaries of theft and originality are also super, super murky when it comes to art. Virtually all art is derived from pre-existing sources - humans observe and remember, and then we bend, blend, break, and recombine. The main difference between what we do and what an AI art generator does is intentionality. But you can argue (and lawyers are arguing) that in the case of a AI such as Stable Diffusion, the intentionality is supplied by the human user.

But let's say I hire a local artist to paint a portrait of my D&D character, and do it by studying my favourite artist - maybe I'm a Frank Frazetta fan - and do it as closely as possible to that style. Is that unethical? Is that stealing? So what is the difference between that and feeding that same prompt into Stable Diffusion...or into this app (maybe; not sure exactly how this app works)?

I think there are differences in process, for sure, but in terms of ethics, let alone the law? I don't think it's as simple as just labeling all AI art theft. The AIs, prompted by humans, are creating new art that has never been seen in the world before. It is unquestionably derivative...but all art is to some degree derivative. So the answer is not going to be cut and dry.

They take the products of artists’ labor to use without their knowledge or permission. I don’t care if a court decides they’re allowed to do it, it’s still theft by any meaningful definition of the word. It is not the same process as human artists taking inspiration from other art because these algorithms are not thinking beings. They aren’t capable of contributing anything original to a creation, they can only recombine elements directly copied from elsewhere.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They take the products of artists’ labor to use without their knowledge or permission.

That's pretty much what human artists do too. That's why art courses spend years studying the work of great artists.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

These programs don’t create art, they steal it. Yes, if one was made that only used seed art that was legally purchased or willingly donated by the artists, it could be ethical, but that’s pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. Might as well be talking about ethical NFTs.

Well, no. NFTs are inherently unethical.

As for the idea that these programs necessarily steal art, I’ll just go ahead and politely disagree and disengage.