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.

 

[Jared Earle]

a single AI generated image might be enough to place the Terminator franchise into the public domain.

No, it wouldn’t. That’s a preposterous supposition.

It’s impossible for that to happen and I don’t understand how you could get to that conclusion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, it wouldn’t. That’s a preposterous supposition.

It’s impossible for that to happen and I don’t understand how you could get to that conclusion.

It’s a weird thought exercise, but if:

Any image created by AI is public domain

And

Someone uses AI to create an image of the Arnold terminator

Does that mean the artistic Arnold terminator is essentially (not technically but for all intents and purposes) public domain (since people could just keep using AI to create an infinite amount of Arnold terminator images)?

I’m surprised this has been going on for about two years and a company like Disney hasn’t forced the issue in court already.

 

[Prime_Evil]

No, it wouldn’t. That’s a preposterous supposition.

It’s impossible for that to happen and I don’t understand how you could get to that conclusion.

That is based on a strict reading of the published guidance of the US Copyright Office. If you don't clearly identify which parts of a work were algorithmically generated and explicitly release those portions into the public domain, the entire work becomes ineligible for copyright protection. I don't expect this ruling will remain tenable for long as companies such as Adobe embed AI tools into artist workflows. But it is the current ruling.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I have been saying this all year. News and social media are trying to convince people that these tools are going to "increase innovation and productivity", but what good are these tools (I should say toys, really) if you can't copyright anything made with them?

What exactly are these tools going to produce that is of any use to a company making a commercial product? (Given the current risks, legal uncertainty, and potential for losing your own IP).


With the added caveat that in his world, people were so paranoid of AI surpassing its limitations that they had an "electromagnetic shotgun wired to their head" that was set to trigger the moment they started to behave independently. (to the best of my memory).

I think we will get a coherent legal framework for generative AI over the next few years. This technology poses deep ethical questions, but it is too powerful to ignore. The main concern is ensuring that AI doesn't become a walled garden controlled by a small number of tech giants.

My concern is that a lot of the discussion at the Copyright Office isn't about protecting the rights of artists - it's about protecting corporate monopolies against competition. There are swarms of lobbyists working on swaying regulators worldwide that only incumbent players can be trusted with AI.

The weaponisation of intellectual property laws to crush dissent and reduce all artists to mere serfdom is well and truly underway.

 

[Scribe]

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

Which was pretty crazy to see.

The main concern is ensuring that AI doesn't become a walled garden controlled by a small number of tech giants.

I dont think thats either the main concern, or even preventable.

Anyway, it took me 2 seconds to get this generated, and thats with the tool blocking 'Arnold Schwarzenegger as....' because if it WAS allowed (or I cared to apply enough work arounds, trust me you can break the rules on these) how close would it be to spot on?

I prefer my version anyway.

 

[Jared Earle]

That is based on a strict reading of the published guidance of the US Copyright Office. If you don't clearly identify which parts of a work were algorithmically generated and explicitly release those portions into the public domain, the entire work becomes ineligible for copyright protection. I don't expect this ruling will remain tenable for long as companies such as Adobe embed AI tools into artist workflows. But it is the current ruling.

The Terminator RPG isn’t American, for a start.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The Terminator RPG isn’t American, for a start.

Correct. But I'm pretty sure it involves a contract with an American entity who owns the IP. This may be David Ellison's Skydance Media (who co-own the rights with James Cameron). But it is more likely to be StudioCanal (a French film company who own distribution rights for T1 and T2 through their American subsidiary, having purchased the back catalogue of Carolco after the departure of Mario Kassar. Note that StudioCanal helped finance T2 through the Canal+ Group). The Copyright notice on both these films specify the copyright is held under US law...

 

[Jared Earle]

Correct. But I'm pretty sure it involves a contract with an American entity who owns the IP. This may be David Ellison's Skydance Media (who co-own the rights with James Cameron). But it is more likely to be StudioCanal (a French film company who own distribution rights for T1 and T2 through their American subsidiary, having purchased the back catalogue of Carolco after the departure of Mario Kassar. Note that StudioCanal helped finance T2 through the Canal+ Group). The Copyright notice on both these films specify the copyright is held under US law...

Imagine this: find an RPG with a Shakespeare quote that quotes the character instead of Shakespeare himself. That’s not at all unlikely, right? Or even a movie where a character says a Shakespeare line without attribution.

Is that now public domain?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Imagine this: find an RPG with a Shakespeare quote that quotes the character instead of Shakespeare himself. That’s not at all unlikely, right? Or even a movie where a character says a Shakespeare line without attribution.

Is that now public domain?

Well, yes, and it has been for a while. Anything created before copyright laws existed, or is past the period of protection (x years after the creator's death) is public domain. That's why we see so many Shakespeare remakes and quotes.

 

[Jared Earle]

Well, yes, and it has been for a while. Anything created before copyright laws existed, or is past the period of protection (x years after the creator's death) is public domain. That's why we see so many Shakespeare remakes and quotes.

You missed my point. Is everything with unattributed Shakespeare forced into the public domain? Of course not; that’s not how copyright works.