AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

(this is not the art in question)​

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not really interested since your attitude is increasingly passive aggressive. Doesnt feel like this going on any longer will end with anything less then you making 5-6 more thinly veiled barbs or attacks. Real cringe.

Not being passive aggressive. I’m literally asking you, as bluntly and non-passively as possible, to provide what you said you would.

You asked me what I’d do when, not if, you provided a quote from an AI developer of these common programs that disagreed with Midjourneys founder who admits they use art without permission.

Accusing me of being not on the up and up and attacking you isn’t the best way to avoid doing what you said you would, but to each their own I guess. Remember, you were the one to say AI wasn’t theft. All I did was provide a pretty good authority to show it is.

 

[Shardstone]

Not being passive aggressive. I’m literally asking you, as bluntly and non-passively as possible, to provide what you said you would.

You asked me what I’d do when, not if, you provided a quote from an AI developer of these common programs that disagreed with Midjourneys founder who admits they use art without permission.

Accusing me of being not on the up and up and attacking you isn’t the best way to avoid doing what you said you would, but to each their own I guess. Remember, you were the one to say AI wasn’t theft. All I did was provide a pretty good authority to show it is.

Sorry mate but the bolded part is why I'm not continuing this, but not for the reasons you have behind this idea. It's just really annoying and unfun to talk to someone who keeps misrepresenting my original point, and instead of asking for clarification, just throws up quotes, repeats their misunderstanding as if it were fact and then, in that bolded text, comes up with nonsense for why I'm not continuing the discussion.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Whoa, really? Do you have a cite? Because that's huge news if true.

Last I heard, AI images themselves were deemed by USPTO not copyrightable, but attached words and layouts are. This came from that hullabaloo late last year/early this year when someone tried to copyright a comic featuring a character resembling Zendaya. But something could have changed since then.

The current guidance from the US Copyright Office is in the publication "Copyright Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-Generated Materials" (Federal Register Version, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 [Mar. 16, 2023]). Where a work has a mixture of human authorship and machine-generated content, the current guidelines require the human to clearly distinguish between the human generated portions and the machine generated portions. They must also explicitly disclaim all Copyright on the machine generated portions, releasing them into the public domain. Failure to meet these two requirements will result in denial of copyright to the composite work.

This is obviously not a viable position for any licensor of a movie IP to be in.

Having said that, the Copyright Office is requesting public consultation regarding the future of how IP laws will treat these technologies. So the landscape may change. This is an evolving area. I suspect things might look very different in a few years time.

But most publishers will be reluctant to go anywhere near generative AI until the law is sorted

 

[Morrus]

The issue at stake here is not whether AI generated art is good or not.

Well, the issue at stake to you, perhaps. For many of us the ethics are important.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry mate but the bolded part is why I'm not continuing this, but not for the reasons you have behind this idea. It's just really annoying and unfun to talk to someone who keeps misrepresenting my original point, and instead of asking for clarification, just throws up quotes, repeats their misunderstanding as if it were fact and then, in that bolded text, comes up with nonsense for why I'm not continuing the discussion.

You were the one to come into this thread calling other people hysterical. It wasn't just me who thought you were being smug about it, so I find it a bit rich that you'd accuse me of being unreasonable when all I did was point out how literally the founder of MidJourney disproved your point. You can reply or not reply, but let's be honest at least. You not only said you were going to do something, but you directly asked me how I would react to you doing something. Don't blame me with ironic accusations of not arguing in good faith as an reason to not provide what you said you would provide.

As far as it looks to me, you came into this thread repeating a debunked claim I've seen all too often and insulted people who are upset about this topic, and when called on it by citing an actual expert refuting your claim, are trying to shift the problem as one I'm creating. If that's not true, then please clarify. Why would you come into this thread calling people hysterical? What were you expected to get with that?

Do you know what's unfun? Someone coming into a discussion where people are legitimately upset about something and being told they are hysterical, especially when that person is just wrong with their assumption. Cuz that never gets old, and happens with each and every one of these discussions. I can only speak for myself of course, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that artists out there are just fed up and tired of being told they aren't rational on this AI topic by people who have no idea how it works or being utilized in every freaking conversation about it.

 

[Shardstone]

You were the one to come into this thread calling other people hysterical. It wasn't just me who thought you were being smug about it, so I find it a bit rich that you'd accuse me of being unreasonable when all I did was point out how literally the founder of MidJourney disproved your point. You can reply or not reply, but let's be honest at least. You not only said you were going to do something, but you directly asked me how I would react to you doing something. Don't blame me with ironic accusations of not arguing in good faith as an reason to not provide what you said you would provide.

As far as it looks to me, you came into this thread repeating a debunked claim I've seen all too often and insulted people who are upset about this topic, and when called on it by citing an actual expert refuting your claim, are trying to shift the problem as one I'm creating. If that's not true, then please clarify. Why would you come into this thread calling people hysterical? What were you expected to get with that?

Do you know what's unfun? Someone coming into a discussion where people are legitimately upset about something and being told they are hysterical, especially when that person is just wrong with their assumption. Cuz that never gets old, and happens with each and every one of these discussions. I can only speak for myself of course, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that artists out there are just fed up and tired of being told they aren't rational on this AI topic by people who have no idea how it works or being utilized in every freaking conversation about it.

I work with an artist very closely that does indeed hate AI and what it stands for. Not replying to the rest of the comment because you are honestly arguing with imagined phantoms.

 

[Gradine]

There hasn't been anybody I've seen be more upset and concerned over the idea of AI art than actual artists who are losing actual work as a result of software that is actively stealing not only their own artwork but also future jobs.

 

[Gradine]

 

[Prime_Evil]

Well, the issue at stake to you, perhaps. For many of us the ethics are important.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not making any representation either way about the ethics surrounding generative AI. I have opinions, but they are not relevant. In this case, I am commenting in a narrow sense about why companies are crazy to touch AI generated images with a barge pole right now - especially in works involving a licensed IP.

You may notice I am also sidestepping the fact the artist lied about the source of the images. That is a red flag even if the use of AI was acceptable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There hasn't been anybody I've seen be more upset and concerned over the idea of AI art than actual artists who are losing actual work as a result of software that is actively stealing not only their own artwork but also future jobs.

This was just from yesterday, and comments like this are all over the place. Artists are hurting, frustrated, and angry. On multiple levels. The entire industry is suffering.

Because crap like this keeps happening. (Sports Illustrated caught using AI art AND writing AND fake "authors")