WotC WotC: 'Artists Must Refrain From Using AI Art Generation'

After it was revealed this week that one of the artists for Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants used artificial intelligence as part of their process when creating some of the book's images, Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement via the D&D Beyond Twitter (X?) account.

The statement is in image format, so I've transcribed it below.

Today we became aware that an artist used AI to create artwork for the upcoming book, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. We have worked with this artist since 2014 and he's put years of work into book we all love. While we weren't aware of the artist's choice to use AI in the creation process for these commissioned pieces, we have discussed with him, and he will not use AI for Wizards' work moving forward. We are revising our process and updating our artist guidelines to make clear that artists must refrain from using AI art generation as part of their art creation process for developing D&D art.

-Wizards of the Coast​

Ilya Shkipin, the artist in question, talked about AI's part in his process during the week, but has since deleted those posts.

There is recent controversy on whether these illustrations I made were ai generated. AI was used in the process to generate certain details or polish and editing. To shine some light on the process I'm attaching earlier versions of the illustrations before ai had been applied to enhance details. As you can see a lot of painted elements were enhanced with ai rather than generated from ground up.

-Ilya Shlipin​

​

 

[Storyteller Hero]

I think that it should be noted that AI-generated images currently have no copyright protection (at least in the USA), which makes them a potential legal liability for businesses. If somebody does a sketch, but then "finishes" it through an AI generated image, the end product may potentially have no copyright protection (at least in the USA) because it was not produced by a human as the law defines it.

As such, corporations do have a substantial reason to be wary of AI-generated images, due to a lack of protections for the properties produced by AI generation, on top of potentially problematic generations; studies at Google, Deepmind, and universities such as the University of Maryland and NYU have confirmed tangible possibilities of AI generators copying the copyrighted or trademarked works of artists at a level high enough to provoke lawsuits.

The battlefield of lobbying and laws is still in play, due to the AI generator issue being relatively young in the current era of politics.

 

[Parmandur]

The amount of non-artists preaching and pontificating on this issue is alarming, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising...

Looking at the pieces in question through an artist's eyes is more telling. The artist in question did a 5 minute sketch, ran it through an AI "enhancement" process (that's a very generous use of the word enhancement) and came up with a finished-looking piece. But you can see that there are several differences between the initial sketch and the final piece, in which the artist's hand is removed from the work and it becomes more generic. It means that he spent 5 minutes creating what would normally have taken him 5 to 10 hours of work, but in the process the artwork also became less original. So he only produced a sketch, which he then sold as a finished piece claiming that he created it himself.

The chilling factor comes in when you understand that Hasbro buys its art as "work for hire," meaning the artist loses all rights to the work they create and Hasbro owns its entirely. Which means that Hasbro can use these pieces to train their own AI art models. You may have seen what some of the more sophisticated AI art models can do -- things like transforming stick figures into photorealistic images. We're nearly at the stage where they can pretty much cut artists out of the equation entirely. Some CEO could doodle a monster on a cocktail napkin, run it through an AI model to generate 30 different monsters that look like they were painted by artists (because the rights to those artists' portfolios are owned by Hasbro).

Look at older D&D books; settings like Planescape were defined by the look of artists like Brom and Tony DiTerlizzi. Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, Jeff Easley, and Clyde Caldwell's art instantly takes you back to AD&D, Dragonlance and earlier settings. Folks like Erol Otus and Jeff Dee helped form the unique look of old D&D. 4e and Pathfinder got their unique looks from Wayne Reynolds. All of these "looks" are all due to the hard work by real artists. Running sketches and doodles through an AI generator removes those unique, defining qualities that make art great. If this is allowed, all art will look the same because it will be created by the same art scraping programs that blend all artists into the same bland soup. And I bet these same people singing AI's praises now will in 5 years be first in line with pitchforks and torches, whining that all fantasy artwork looks bland and identical, and doesn't have the soul of earlier editions.

It's amazing technology. It's horrifying technology.

Except there is no reason to suspect that Hasbro is pursuing that, particularly since they kljust released no-AI art guidelines.

Is AI art bad? Yes.

Is there a particular reason to believe that WptC is interested in it? No.

 

[Zardnaar]

The amount of non-artists preaching and pontificating on this issue is alarming, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising...

Looking at the pieces in question through an artist's eyes is more telling. The artist in question did a 5 minute sketch, ran it through an AI "enhancement" process (that's a very generous use of the word enhancement) and came up with a finished-looking piece. But you can see that there are several differences between the initial sketch and the final piece, in which the artist's hand is removed from the work and it becomes more generic. It means that he spent 5 minutes creating what would normally have taken him 5 to 10 hours of work, but in the process the artwork also became less original. So he only produced a sketch, which he then sold as a finished piece claiming that he created it himself.

The chilling factor comes in when you understand that Hasbro buys its art as "work for hire," meaning the artist loses all rights to the work they create and Hasbro owns its entirely. Which means that Hasbro can use these pieces to train their own AI art models. You may have seen what some of the more sophisticated AI art models can do -- things like transforming stick figures into photorealistic images. We're nearly at the stage where they can pretty much cut artists out of the equation entirely. Some CEO could doodle a monster on a cocktail napkin, run it through an AI model to generate 30 different monsters that look like they were painted by artists (because the rights to those artists' portfolios are owned by Hasbro).

Look at older D&D books; settings like Planescape were defined by the look of artists like Brom and Tony DiTerlizzi. Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, Jeff Easley, and Clyde Caldwell's art instantly takes you back to AD&D, Dragonlance and earlier settings. Folks like Erol Otus and Jeff Dee helped form the unique look of old D&D. 4e and Pathfinder got their unique looks from Wayne Reynolds. All of these "looks" are all due to the hard work by real artists. Running sketches and doodles through an AI generator removes those unique, defining qualities that make art great. If this is allowed, all art will look the same because it will be created by the same art scraping programs that blend all artists into the same bland soup. And I bet these same people singing AI's praises now will in 5 years be first in line with pitchforks and torches, whining that all fantasy artwork looks bland and identical, and doesn't have the soul of earlier editions.

It's amazing technology. It's horrifying technology.

Think they've already crossed the Rubicon on bland and generic looking art.
It all pretty much looks like cgi slightly uncanny valley.

Maybe pull out the old pencil and paint again?

 

[Scribe]

Think they've already crossed the Rubicon on bland and generic looking art.

I still say Spelljammer had some good art.

 

[Clint_L]

When you say "intentional", do you mean like they were specifically seeking out an AI artist, or does that include the fact that they just might have been cool with an AI artist among their other artists? I still think that someone in there wanted to see if it could be a tool for them to use in the future. Not that they'd replace everyone with AI art, but I do think they wanted to see what they could get out of it.

Got some evidence?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I still say Spelljammer had some good art.

Most of the newer books have.

Sure, they also have some duds, but less than the PHB did IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

I still say Spelljammer had some good art.

Haven't seen that one tbf.
I don't think the 5E art will age to well.

 

[Scribe]

Most of the newer books have.

Sure, they also have some duds, but less than the PHB did IMO.

A bit here or there, spelljammer was the last I got, as a gift.

I just like the shot with the party near the start, and the whole design of Astral elves I guess.

 

[Scribe]

Haven't seen that one tbf.
I don't think the 5E art will age to well.

This one.

Actually may be my favourite art of 5e? Hmm I'll have to think on this.

 

[Zardnaar]

This one.

Actually may be my favourite art of 5e? Hmm I'll have to think on this.

Bit garish for my taste.