First debate of 2025 - AI image or not ?

[Joël of the FoS]

Let's end the year and start the new one with a debate

For FoS books and site content (not asking for life in general), AI generated images are acceptable or not?

I know alhoon asked the question when we were making QtR but I was then on vacation and forgot to pursue on this. Better late then never.

So, what do you think?

My position at the moment: for me, who can't draw well a stick figure, and as no talent in art in general (except guitar playing), AI is a blessing : finally, I am able to put visuals on my ideas! I say as long as it is properly identified as AI (mentionning name of AI software, and bonus if prompt used is also mentionned), why not?

[Rock of the Fraternity]

AI image 'generation' is fine as a model for private study or party gags, but not for publication. AI does not create new images, but takes existing ones from around the net and hamfistedly slaps them together - and people who use it then boast of having 'created' art.

That's not even going into the jackasses who deliberately program their rig to go after specific artists' style and copy those.

If you can't draw a stick figure but have a vision, I personally recommend either practising or endowing an artist. There are plenty out there, struggling to hone their skills and stay afloat in spite of jerks who claim they're artists now when all they do is feed parameters into an AI scraping images from across the net.

[Lucius]

I will post more on the subject in the coming days, but for now, I will offer my point of view as someone who creates art and who at the same time participates in a project that uses AI art.

As some know, I'm part of the Black Feather, a team of Brazilian fans dedicated to creating RL material for the DMs Guild.

Initially, I would be responsible for creating all the art for the books, which is what I do in my side projects (my system and books for other settings that I publish on the DMs Guild).

In the end, the rest of the team opted to use AI in most of the art in the books (sometimes I do some smaller art, like crests, symbols, maps, etc.), as the general consensus was that art created by AI could better convey the atmosphere of RL in the books.

This decision was made both because of the artistic style (which didn't offend me) and because of the issue of time X quantity of images. And in that sense I even found it understandable.

On the other hand, both I and the other team members understand the entire ethical issue surrounding AI-generated art.

We also respect and understand when someone decides not to buy our books because of our use of AI.

Something we always do is work on the arts in order to make changes instead of using the arts the way they were generated. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that they are AI images...

On the other hand, and I'm going to play devil's advocate here (since this is ultimately my profession), when it comes to RPG books, the focus of the product is the text, the creativity, the ideas presented. The art ends up being an extra, an aesthetic detail, but not the main reason (or often not even the secondary) why someone buys an RPG book.

I understand that it would be something completely different if someone tried to sell an art book, made by AI, or an RPG book with text made by AI... because then the focus of the work would not be the author's work.

Currently, even in programs like Photoshop it is possible to create art using AI quickly and simply, so I believe that the issue of AI ends up becoming a discussion similar to that of piracy.

It exists, many use it, for a variety of reasons, and it is something considered unethical. But in the end, is tangible harm being caused (apart from copyright infringement, of course)?

And this last question, I say as someone who has had countless books pirated, and in the end, it didn't end up resulting in any losses, because whoever pirated them wouldn't buy them anyway...

And, in the end, some people who ended up downloading the pirated version and liked it, ended up buying and/or recommending the material.

Well, that's what I wanted to bring to the discussion at the moment. It's 5:00 AM here, and I need to get into my coffin before the sun comes up.

I hope I have contributed in some positive way to the discussion, and to those who, in some way, do not agree with my views, I make it clear that I understand and respect the opinion of those who are against the use of AI generated art in certain circumstances.

Happy New Year everyone!

[brothersale]

Depends, im not opposed to its use as long as people are informed of its use but as art also contains things like Collage art made of other images to make new art, i find the arguement against its use a bit hypercritical as Collage artists are permitted to make money with no payment to the orginal artist/s, the while in other mediums that not a option (ie in music if another tune is played in the backgound it ends up being paided for).

But at the end of the day quality matters, the good artists will still make money regardless of AI, it tends to be the less talented (and from what i can tell they are the most vocal ones) that are complaining about a drop in sales. So the end result seems to be that the customer pays for a merit based market, not something i can dismiss in this economy

[Mephisto of the FoS]

As an artist and someone who is against Copyright but instead I am pro CC BY-NC-SA Creative License I believe that AI is a tool for those who cannot draw to create the mood they want as mentioned before but also for artists like myself to create images of what I have in my mind faster. Since most of the artwork I have published is made combining/collaging pictures in photoshop and then print them and redraw them, AI generated imagery helps me to collect and combine more quickly images for my hobby. Since the FoS netbooks are distributed for free (and its our hobby) I see nothing unethical in using AI generated images and no point in banning AI generated images from them as it is not that someone is losing their job or something. I already spend a lot of time to write articles, create stats etc. if there is something that can help me create images faster I am going to use it. As mentioned before collage is perceived as an acceptable and ethical way to create art, I don't see why AI shouldn't be acceptable also.

For instance in my last years masquerade article the images for the masquerade attendees cards I made were made a decade ago before I had any clue for any AI image generation software and just combined various pictures in photoshop. For my Markovia Gazetteer illustrations I used AI generated imagery as well as reworked illustration by Gustav Dore (he died in 1883 so his images are Public Domain) while on my article on Richemulot's watch companies I drew everything myself thus I have put my monogram signature to them. Everyone is free to use them and rework on them, I don't mind because this is what I believe art and the communication of ideas should work.

I will go as far as to say that I don't believe that there should be mention of the specific tool that is used to create an image as the AI drawing programs also don't mentioned which images they have used to create the final image.

The point to me is the quality of the images, if they represent what I want them to and if they don't have drawing problems usually found in AI generated material like funny elastic 9 fingered hands, potato like faces etc. AI generated images usually need some rework anyway or at least every person depicted for instance should be different and not a clone of the previous picture with different coloured hair and a beard etc.

[Joël of the FoS]

If you can't draw a stick figure but have a vision, I personally recommend either practising or endowing an artist. There are plenty out there, struggling to hone their skills and stay afloat

That would be the best, indeed!

However, I think that going this way has many limitations, such as:

1) since real art takes time, it is limiting the number of art pieces that could be in an article? (vs AI = near limitless)
2) it is adding a lot of delay to the article? (vs AI = in a minute)
3) costing something (or ethically demanding a reward for the work done) while our art budget is close to zero ? (AI = near free)
4) limiting creativity of the writer, who can test quickly visuals and improve his ideas?
5) there is a limited bassin of artists here*, while AI is right there in my computer.

By the way, I'm not pushing for 100 % AI, as I love real art (we already have a good quantity for the SoS Gaz) and really appreciate the fact that someone made something especially for us.

* But if there are people reading this that wants to contribute art, please manifest yourselves

[Lucius]

* But if there are people reading this that wants to contribute art, please manifest yourselves

I can contribute one thing or another. Just let me know what you need.

[Rock of the Fraternity]

If you can't draw a stick figure but have a vision, I personally recommend either practising or endowing an artist. There are plenty out there, struggling to hone their skills and stay afloat

That would be the best, indeed!

However, I think that going this way has many limitations, such as:

1) since real art takes time, it is limiting the number of art pieces that could be in an article? (vs AI = near limitless)

We have over half a year before the next issue of QtR. If you have ideas now, talk to someone who can draw.

2) it is adding a lot of delay to the article? (vs AI = in a minute)

See previous; a bit of planning can help get things done on time.

3) costing something (or ethically demanding a reward for the work done) while our art budget is close to zero ? (AI = near free)

Yes, real artists cost something. This is something you should discuss with them. Personally, I still prefer it over using an AI program that steals from real artists. :-/

4) limiting creativity of the writer, who can test quickly visuals and improve his ideas?

See 1) and 2), and keep in mind that illustrators and authors have worked together fruitfully for centuries before the notion of a computer scraping existing art was even a concept.

5) there is a limited bassin of artists here*, while AI is right there in my computer.

Joël... DeviantArt exists, you know. ^^; You can also put the word out on social media, where artists advertise their services. If there is a limited pool here, just cast your net out over the wider sea?

I understand that having a program on your computer is convenient. But real original art, by real people, is worth the effort of getting it. And does not come with ethical concerns or copyright issues - or the frankly butt-ugly mistakes AI frequently makes.

[Mephisto of the FoS]

1) since real art takes time, it is limiting the number of art pieces that could be in an article? (vs AI = near limitless)

We have over half a year before the next issue of QtR. If you have ideas now, talk to someone who can draw.

Well we always have a year ahead but usually most articles are submitted the last minute, also some ideas may come later and some people may not have the time to work on these in advance. After all we write articles for QtR because we enjoy doing so it is not our job.

2) it is adding a lot of delay to the article? (vs AI = in a minute)

See previous; a bit of planning can help get things done on time.

Everyone has different ways to which they write draw etc I don't expect people to plan things as if this was a working environment/situation. Talking for myself I don't just sit and wait for ideas to come to write or draw, usually they come at some point when I am in the mood to do so and then I try to find time to do it. My work is already artistic so I write and draw for RPG's when I am in an otherwise creative block... or when trying to avoid doing something I really don't want to do (like rearranging my studio)

Yes, real artists cost something. This is something you should discuss with them. Personally, I still prefer it over using an AI program that steals from real artists. :-/

AI stealing art from real people is in my opinion a misconception. Artists steal anyway. If it wasn't for the Roman copies of classical statues of the antiquity these would have been lost in time and maybe there would be no renaissance. Disegno was a popular technique where artists learnt to draw by copying pieces of ancient art. During the Renaissance period, imitation was seen as a means of obtaining one's personal style. In the 18th century, Romanticism reversed it with the creation of the institution of romantic originality. In the 20th century, the modernist and postmodern movements in turn discarded the romantic idea of creativity, and heightened the practice of imitation, copying, plagiarism, rewriting, appropriation and so on as the central artistic device. Pablo Picasso himself said “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

4) limiting creativity of the writer, who can test quickly visuals and improve his ideas?

See 1) and 2), and keep in mind that illustrators and authors have worked together fruitfully for centuries before the notion of a computer scraping existing art was even a concept.

Yes they have but usually for money. Also since creativity was mentioned it is not bad i n my opinion to be inspired by an AI image. It is all about the idea of what someone wants to create there is where the originality exists and since someone may have an idea of an image but not the skill to do so there is where the AI comes in handy.

"I want an image of a werewolf without sausage fingers attacking a man with a real face not a potato like one"
Style: Medieval Manuscript

5) there is a limited bassin of artists here*, while AI is right there in my computer.

Joël... DeviantArt exists, you know. ^^; You can also put the word out on social media, where artists advertise their services. If there is a limited pool here, just cast your net out over the wider sea?

As I said I don't expect people to pay to have images in their articles since there is an alternative. The netbooks are free and some people getting payed for work done in them is not something that should be necessary in my opinion unless someone has the will and pocket to do so.

I understand that having a program on your computer is convenient. But real original art, by real people, is worth the effort of getting it. And does not come with ethical concerns or copyright issues - or the frankly butt-ugly mistakes AI frequently makes.

As I said before there are other ways except copyright for artist to distribute their art, that said original art is always good but I wouldn't mind having AI generated art instead of no art at all, but without the sausage finger issues and other mistakes AI programs do. If they are well made and diverse in the way people are "drawn" I am OK with it.

[Mephisto of the FoS]

The werewolf I mentioned earlier...

[alhoon]

Let's end the year and start the new one with a debate

For FoS books and site content (not asking for life in general), AI generated images are acceptable or not?

For me, an enthusiastic "Yes". I am getting good-ish in getting AI to generate images close to what I imagine and it is not like the Netbooks are for sale.

[IanFordam]

Rock's first message in this thread did a good job of explaining where I stand on this issue.

That said, while my stick-figure drawings have actually received praise for being properly proportioned, I am by no means an artist. Therefore at a social gathering today I brought up the question of AI art with a friend of mine who is, indeed, an artist. He thinks AI is a fascinating new technique. Then again, his wife then reminded him of another friend who had his copyrighted work recognizably regurgitated by an AI engine. Only two data points, but they also illustrate where I stand.

I recognize the advantages of automated art generation, but I remain concerned about its use. Just my two cents.

[KingCorn]

So long as its not used for making money, or deliberately snubbing artists who take requests, I figure its fine. I'll never really respect it, but when one doesn't have art skills, nor the money or wilingness to pay a real artist its a fun toy that fills a minor need.

[Mephisto of the FoS]

Then again, his wife then reminded him of another friend who had his copyrighted work recognizably regurgitated by an AI engine.

So is every collage in the world, and people make money on this and it is acceptable although legally illegal.

If you reproduce, publish or distribute a copyrighted work (or a work derived from a copyrighted work) without permission or a valid license – that's copyright infringement. If you want to use an image that's copyright protected, first get a license or permission to use it from the creator.

Often the materials will be copyrighted. So your unauthorized use of those materials would be copyright infringement unless your collage qualifies as fair use. Unfortunately, there is no legal rule on whether collage as a category would be fair use.

Any work published before 1924 is now in the public domain and can be freely used in your work. Any images created before 1924, are copyright free. So in other words any collage you see is probably illegal.

Free images are typically licensed with Creative Commons copyright licenses or are a part of the public domain. Public domain images and images with a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license are free to download and use commercially without attributing the source.

Fair use permits a party to use a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship*, or research.

Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.

Reposting someone else's copyrighted work on Social Media can open the door to costly copyright infringement lawsuits – even if you give credit to the copyright owner. Technically speaking, reposting another user's content — reposting social media content — is copyright infringement.

It's a rabbit hole...

*PS
We are scholars and researchers aren't we?

[Mephisto of the FoS]

10 Ways Collage Artists Can Avoid Copyright Infringement
It applies to AI reproduced images as well

• Create Original Content: The best way to avoid copyright issues is to use your own photographs, drawings, or images as much as possible. By generating your own content, you ensure that you hold the rights to the materials and can freely incorporate them into your collages.

• Seek Permission: If you wish to include copyrighted images in your collage, reach out to the copyright holder and request permission. Obtaining a written license or agreement ensures that you have the necessary authorization to use the specific images in your artwork.

• Use Public Domain or Creative Commons Images: Look for images that are in the public domain or released under Creative Commons licenses. These images are often free to use without permission, provided you comply with the specific terms outlined by the license.

• Understand Fair Use: Educate yourself about the concept of fair use and its application in collage art. Fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material under specific circumstances, such as for commentary, criticism, or transformative purposes. Familiarize yourself with the fair use factors and consult legal resources to determine if your collage qualifies for this defense.

• Transform the Original Images: To strengthen your fair use argument, transform the copyrighted images you incorporate into your collage. Add significant creative elements, modify the images, or combine them with other elements to create a new and transformative work. (This is what AI does)

• Use Images in Small Portions: When using copyrighted images, limit their inclusion to small portions of your overall collage. By using only a fraction of the original work, you reduce the likelihood of infringing upon the copyright holder's rights.

• Attribute the Source: Always credit the original source of any copyrighted images you include in your collage. Properly attributing the images shows respect for the copyright holder and can help demonstrate good faith if any legal issues arise.

• Be Aware of Parody and Satire: Collage artists engaged in parody or satire have greater leeway under fair use. However, it's crucial to understand the legal nuances and consult legal advice when incorporating copyrighted material for these purposes.

• Understand Publicity and Privacy Rights: Consider the rights of individuals whose recognizable images may appear in your collage. If you include images of people without their consent, you may infringe upon their privacy or publicity rights. Be mindful of these rights and seek permission or use images that don't compromise personal privacy.

• Stay Informed and Seek Legal Advice: Copyright laws and fair use guidelines can be complex and vary across jurisdictions. Stay updated on copyright laws and consult with legal professionals specializing in intellectual property if you have specific concerns or questions about your collage art.