No AI for Card Maker: Petition and Open Letter to YCMaker

[cr47t]

[Please see bottom of this original post for updates to this ongoing situation]

It has recently come to the attention of me and some other YCM users that AI is now a built-in feature for the YCM card maker. This is a petition requesting that YCMaker remove this feature from the card maker page, along with some reasons why.

Generative image AI (presumably what is being used here) is very popular at the moment, and a large technological achievement, but it is not without its risks both practical and ethical. Already on image-oriented sites like ArtStation and to an extent Deviantart, the incorporation of AI has been met with backlash against its user base for basing its results on existing works without the consent of or payment towards the artists whose work is being used, and rightly so. When done by human hands in such a direct way, it is correctly labelled as copyright infringement, theft, and even plagiarism. I do not see why it should be any different when the result is completely by computer means.

To add to this, AI stand on shaky legal ground, as per the Getty Images lawsuit and related charges: even if the court does rule in favor of the AI being fair use, this will not mitigate the threat to YCM as a site, as Yu-Gi-Oh owners Konami is known for keeping a tight hand on their own card art; in addition, they have also taken decisive action against percieved copyright infringers in the past (primarily Dueling Network). If the posting of AI-assisted cards is brought to Konami's attention - even if the feature is removed by then - Konami may take similar action against YCM thus putting an effective end to our community and any profits YCM may make. This risk is mitigated if AI is removed as a part of the card maker itself, for in such a case, even if someone were to generate an AI image outside of the card maker and then upload it manually, it would be easier for YCM to argue that such would be the result of an individual user, and not the entire site's responsibility.

The use of AI as a built-in feature of the card maker is both a disgrace and threat to the Yugioh Card Maker website, and thus I/we request it be removed as soon and as thoroughly as possible. Those who agree, please post your shared concern below, but don't start a flame war as such would distract from the overall point.

@YCMaker

EDIT 6/12/23: If you as a forum reader don't mind, please view the replies by date rather than by vote, especially if you want to trace the path of the discussion w/o going back and forth. [In addition to community feedback, I and others have elaborated/added to their original positions.] The option should be right below this original post, on the right side of the page if using a regular computer screen.
EDIT 6/22/23: I should have made this edit a while ago but YCMaker (site owner) has responded in this thread and has decided to switch to Adobe Firefly as a generator when available to the public, mainly because Firefly actually plans to keep its generative pool in check and to compensate artists when it can, which will effectively solve many if not most of the ethical complaints of the AI issue. The complaint was never the existence of AI itself but the recklessness of its current function (across the board, not just on YCM): I've tried to clear this up in follow-up posts in the thread, but I will keep the original title and post intact for posterity's sake and so people can see how the discourse has gone, and I will keep the thread open in case new developments occur.
EDIT 7/11/23: Since the conversation here on this thread seems to have run its course, I am highlighting YCMaker's proposal for resolution as the "best solution" - I refrained from doing this earlier as I'm not sure if it's gonna lock the thread or something, but now I think it ought to resolve the thread and prevent any egging on. I will keep an eye out for Firefly and post about it when it releases, or if any cracks in Firefly's resolution are reported credibly. If enough time passes so that posting here would count as a necrobump, or if this thread gets locked, I'll make a new thread for that.

EDIT 9/21/2023: Adobe Firefly is reportedly out of beta @YCMaker @Falling Pizza please take a look.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by cr47t
See bottom edit

[YCMaker]

I agree, the unattributed use of art in the training of these models is concerning, and there are still a lot of unknown in terms of copyright law and how it pertains to AI generated images. I think the best solution is to eventually use an image generator that was ethically trained. Once Adobe Firefly is commercially available, I'll look into switching to that: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/adobe-firefly-ai-legal-fees

[cr47t]

If none of you mind I'd like to elaborate on some of my objections, and give my take on some of the shrugs by other posters; I wrote the original post trying to make it as short as possible, and to serve as a launchpoint for the discussion that's unfolded - not so much as to be comprehensive of the whole issue. 

On 6/11/2023 at 11:06 AM, Tinkerer said:

...I think all of y'all are blowing things out of proportion with preconceived biases against ai art renditions. It sounds pretty reactionary, ngl.

People talk about ai "stealing art", but what does that mean exactly, especially in this context? Despite the rules the site has, I would wager that at least 50% of the cards posted pre-ai were posted without crediting the artist/artists. I know for a fact I added to that number. With the ai generator, users don't actually have to worry about crediting anyone because it's not taking an artist's work.

Ultimately, without a more solid legal or ethical argument, keeping/removing the AI from here will come down to personal preference, and I don't believe it should be removed from the site based on the personal preferences of some users.

The way generative image AI works, such as stable diffusion, midjourney, etc. and presumably the card maker's version, is that it aggregates pictures (or photos) that already exist, puts them in a neural network, and makes a kind of composite out of them. (This is a estimation - I'm not much of a tech person.) The ethical issue comes with the fact that the artists whose work is being used by the AI didn't agree to it and didn't get paid for it, as well as the AI being derivative to (or past) bordering what would be called plagiarism if a live person did it (CowCow has mentioned nearly 1-1 copies being made by AI, for example. His post here is spot-on.) [EDIT: I can't find his original post here anymore, but kyop has noticed the same thing.]

Add to this the fact that the technology is being used primarily as a means of replacing human behavior, rather than aiding it (citing CowCow's and kyop's sightings of near 1-1 copies, this may actually be the intended use of the technnology, but this is still speculation) and since that is the least labor-intensive/expensive path that is still allowed, users will gravitate towards that use far more often than not. The result is that a whole profession have to compete with a much less labor-intensive and expensive means of creating images - which is their job - and what are they to do if AI does crowd them out of making a living through their craft? As grown adults with quite a bit of time and investment in modern human society, they can't exactly start over with something new that easily (at least, not in practice.)

That's essentially the ethical argument: not only does it steal from real artists, it poses a threat to their livelihoods, while giving nothing in return to make up for it - not credit where credit is due, not any financial gain from their work being used, not even a practical way to opt out in most if not all cases.

[EDIT: It has come to my attention that even the forum's own current rulebook in Realistic Cards more or less says in point 14 to "make sure you either get permission and/or credit the artist" if the art is from someone/thing/where else (ctrl+F the quote) - which is precisely one of the main things AI is being criticized for not doing.]

As for legality, even things that aren't completely in the legal danger zone have been the target of copyright infringement strikes, etc. such as Nintendo being pricks on emulation and preservation, or a major record label striking down a video's monetarization for using their song even though it's pretty obviously fair use, etc. If they can get away with these even when the struck content is more or less in the clear, AI is not going to fare well even in comparison. (For example, the US copyright office has already declared AI artwork un-copyrightable, which will likely be cited in an infringement case at some point or another.

On 6/11/2023 at 3:24 PM, Loleo said:

My 2 cents is AI is a tool not a product maker, whatever an AI spits out in the creative world shouldn't be treated as original art as it is a neural network combining training data with associated words. As a tool to inspire or reframing outputs it still has its uses. It is possible to build Neural Networks with a narrower scope of training data that is unambiguously ethical to use including creative commons and the creators own art work. AI art should not become the norm, but just using that is about as good as finding stock images online in slightly shakier legal territory. There is little to no chance this site would recive legal ramifications because none of the AI features are monitized.

I think this is what it comes down to, except I believe there are better areas for YCM to focus their time and effort. I lie in the preference that it shouldn't be a priority and should be used mindfully not that it is outright wrong.

I agree that AI at its best should be a tool, and it's already not treated as original art (kind of the whole point of the opposition) and while it's theoretically possible to do it ethically by using more narrow training data, sensitivity to copyright, etc. the AI companies won't really do that barring obligation by the law, as it requires more due diligence. With companies like these (as well as in other fields) the only thing they like more than making profits is making profits by doing absolutely nothing, so I don't expect them to adjust but do something much more couch surfing-esque.

Yes there are a lot of places YCM can focus their time and effort, which would do more to bolster forum activity. That isn't really the point of this post though, especially considering the removal of the AI feature will likely not take much more effort than it took to put it in, or especially in comparison to Horu's "narrowing" ideas. (We haven't seen an card maker or forum update this big in some years by YCMaker and/or any admins who may have put this in.)

I hope this addresses some of the grievances, please let me know.

Edited June 23, 2023 by cr47t
Added note in response to CowCow's original post going missing

[Horu]

No, no, you have a fair point. And considering the fact that Kazuki Takahashi passed away, Konami will be fighting tooth and nail to keep their product as pure as possible.

[8corners]

I agree AI-generated images shouldn't be empowered by this site!  In addition to the Intellectual Property considerations and even lawsuits, there's the simple matter that this site has historically been about creativity.  While writing prompts for an AI to generate an image might be considered "creative", it's a far cry from designed-and-rendered-by-hand art in all its wild variations.

Clicking a button to generate art is just going to make all the art look like all the other art.  Where's the fun in that?

[Raikoh130]

I agree as well. I'm against the AI in general, I don't trust them, but this will 100% damage the site. There's already issues going on with both makers not working, we don't need this on top of it. 

[kyop]

5 hours ago, Horu said:

It will create its own version instead of using parts of other artworks

It generates an output by using bits from other artworks. That's the way it works. Like other user mentioned in this topic, some AI art are almost, if not a 100%, identical to existing art. It doesn't take inspiration from something to create something new.

 

Quote

Super Sonic was around well before Super Saiyan.

As a former? Sonic fan, I have to say that it wasn't xD Super Sonic came in late '92, and Super Saiyan early 91', but yeah, they're not that far apart (and that's just some random fact I happen to know – never thought this time would come). Had to get that outta my chest I'm sorry.

I don't mind the removal of this feature from the cardmaker. I wouldn't see myself using even if it was trained solely with art comissioned for this purpose, because AI art tends to be bland and lacks a personal touch anyways xP

[Tinkerer]

Cr47t has a point about the legal ramifications, but I'm not sure that holds water. The legal issues facing AI (according to that article) would not affect us. Stability would probably need to pay Getty, but it's not like any site that uses AI image generation will be held liable.

As for legal issues from Konami, we don't have a clear reason why Dueling Network was taken down, and Duelingbook filled in the void while also adding card creation features. YCMaker is not profiting from the card generation, sk there's next to no reason Konami would come after the site (and if they did, it would be under the exact same grounds they would've had for years - AI art adds nothing to it). Heck, given WotC's track record, I'd be more worried about them bringing a cease & desist than Konami.

 

As for the rest of it... I think all of y'all are blowing things out of proportion with preconceived biases against ai art renditions. It sounds pretty reactionary, ngl.

People talk about ai "stealing art", but what does that mean exactly, especially in this context? Despite the rules the site has, I would wager that at least 50% of the cards posted pre-ai were posted without crediting the artist/artists. I know for a fact I added to that number. With the ai generator, users don't actually have to worry about crediting anyone because it's not taking an artist's work.

 

Ultimately, without a more solid legal or ethical argument, keeping/removing the AI from here will come down to personal preference, and I don't believe it should be removed from the site based on the personal preferences of some users.

[cr47t]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:02 PM, HQCardmaker said:

AI 'Art' is Evil. AI 'Narrowing' is not. AI should be used to narrow down an approach, not outright replace styles with a 'perfect' style. Especially since AI still acts like a 'yes man' infant that gets some art wrong. I think of it like this: If AI was used as a teacher, and could find sources-- real, human sources-- to recommend that could refine someone's work a little better, it could, in theory, help a little bit. Help-- but not replace. It is still up to the artists to contact each other and share, and it is still up to the artists to use as many good references for their work as possible. AI just 'layers' what uses references... as references themselves... and it doesn't even do that good of a job at it. It might one day, but that is far and away.

The most evil thing I've noticed an AI do is in a story where it will declare its interpretation of a character as 'the real character'; the author should dictate where to draw the line in the multiversal sand, and even then, an AI is a fair-weather partner at best-- our weather... not exclusively its own.

This was actually a part of my argument against AI in the card maker that I might not have been too clear about - assuming it meets the ethical standard that comes with using existing work as reference, I'm fine with it being an assistant to human labor as long as it's not used as a substitute for said human labor. However the primary use of AI has been replacement of human effort, both in a lot of its usage and possibly the purpose in mind when it was made. (When I make the latter charge I'm pointing the finger at stable diffusion, midjourney, etc. - not YCMaker because he's basically 'just the messenger' here, and not to more responsible systems like Adobe Firefly which YCMaker is keeping an eye on.)

It's kind of ironic that the pursuit of "perfect" work using AI has led to the AI itself being very hit and miss with even basic details (like drawing fingers, for a particularly striking example.) I predict if AI does 'stick around' past the current tech hype cycle, the focus in the creative spheres and their markets might shift away from artistic perfection and lean more towards authenticity of the artists themselves - basically, there's going to be a future for manmade work no matter what happens. My argument was never that the future of manmade work itself as a practice was under attack, but the livelihoods and thus well-being of the people who have made a living off this kind of thing only to to find themselves bring uprooted.

That being said, YCMaker has posted here that he's willing to shift over to Firefly when it comes out. I'll keep an eye out on the development of Firefly and if the ethical corners are revealed to be cut later on I'll post about it here (or a new thread if this gets locked.) However I will keep the thread open for further discussions - perhaps this can get people interested in the card maker and site again, for once... =/

[Horu]

It could be argued that the ai generator could also be integrated better and programmed specifically to the YGO art style and a writing prompt to describe the image.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

I Agree I'm against AI Art its Disgusting you are just taking the work of Real Artist and destroying them with AI copying them. @YCMaker Please remove this feature from the card maker.

[Loleo]

My 2 cents is AI is a tool not a product maker, whatever an AI spits out in the creative world shouldn't be treated as original art as it is a neural network combining training data with associated words. As a tool to inspire or reframing outputs it still has its uses. It is possible to build Neural Networks with a narrower scope of training data that is unambiguously ethical to use including creative commons and the creators own art work. AI art should not become the norm, but just using that is about as good as finding stock images online in slightly shakier legal territory. There is little to no chance this site would recive legal ramifications because none of the AI features are monitized.

4 hours ago, Tinkerer said:

Ultimately, without a more solid legal or ethical argument, keeping/removing the AI from here will come down to personal preference, and I don't believe it should be removed from the site based on the personal preferences of some users.

I think this is what it comes down to, except I believe there are better areas for YCM to focus their time and effort. I lie in the preference that it shouldn't be a priority and should be used mindfully not that it is outright wrong.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

I just Don't think AI Art is very Legal and YCM might just have to watch his back I don't even know why he even added the feature in the first place nobody asked for this feature.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

On 6/11/2023 at 5:46 PM, Horu said:

So could DC sew Akira Toriyama for Goku's origin story? Maybe Goku's battle with Vegeta and Nappa? No. There is nothing illegal about the AI generator. If you don't believe me, use it to create art for a copywritten/trademarked character. It will create its own version instead of using parts of other artworks. Of course, it will still have the important bits that make up the character you requested. But effectively, creators are always using bits and pieces of other media for thier own stuff. Super Sonic was around well before Super Saiyan. The art acquired is used to train the AI, not be used in the AI's own creation.

That is not the same AI Art is done without Consent they wheren't paid so why do you keep defending them seriously how would you like it if people took your stuff and trained it on AI or your Art or what if your boss said you just been replaced by AI and gives the AI all the credit for ll the work you've done in the past. Think about it its unexceptionable why are you giving all your enry to defend it and be Pro-AI?!? Copy Right is Copy Right Sonic and Dragon Ball are different things Super Sonic took concepts but they aren't riping off Dragon Ball with every single inch.

Also:

On 6/10/2023 at 9:22 AM, Horu said:

No, no, you have a fair point. And considering the fact that Kazuki Takahashi passed away, Konami will be fighting tooth and nail to keep their product as pure as possible.

You can't defend AI Art I HATE AI ART! Also you can't defend AI Art if you agree that Konami would fight tooth and nail to stop AI Art from copying their Art!

Edited June 12, 2023 by Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

2 hours ago, spixi said:

In my opinion, the artwork of a realistic card is just a representative illustration. The creative stuff is the card text itself. So, there is no difference whether you use AI artwork or any free cliparts. Of course, that would be different, when you actually print and sell the cards, but this would violate the copyrights and trademark rights of Konami anyways.

Downvoted. AI Art is Evil

[cr47t]

14 hours ago, YCMaker said:

I agree, the unattributed use of art in the training of these models is concerning, and there are still a lot of unknown in terms of copyright law and how it pertains to AI generated images. I think the best solution is to eventually use an image generator that was ethically trained. Once Adobe Firefly is commercially available, I'll look into switching to that: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/adobe-firefly-ai-legal-fees

I have a few things to say, first and foremost being thank you for weighing in. This is something that has been racking the net for some time and I'm glad it's not something that you would let drive a wedge in the userbase. I hadn't even heard of Adobe Firefly, but based on the article (and this second article here) I am more at ease with it being the basis of the YCM AI than the other models, as it appears to solve or at least address the ethical and legal questions I've raised, at least for the time being. I have two questions, though, and I think they are important:

1. In the event Firefly is able to keep its firm standing, I'd just like to request a kind of disclaimer page made for the site when Firefly is put in YCM, explaining how it uses Firefly to avoid these issues. This would hopefully be a reassurance to both Internet artists and Konami employees that they aren't being robbed, especially if it could easily be located, for example a link to it in the bubble that shows up when you click on the AI drop down in the card maker page. (Until Firefly is added to YCM, I don't think the disclaimer should make the same promises beforehand if it can't cover it.) Could this be done alongside Firefly being added?
2. In the event Firefly fails to live up to its solutions in the future, or causes new problems of similar or greater magnitude of concern, what would the next course of action be for you and/as-owner-of the site?

In any event thank you for your verdict. (These questions aren't a challenge to it, I'm just trying to get some clarity on the what-ifs.)

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

18 hours ago, YCMaker said:

I agree, the unattributed use of art in the training of these models is concerning, and there are still a lot of unknown in terms of copyright law and how it pertains to AI generated images. I think the best solution is to eventually use an image generator that was ethically trained. Once Adobe Firefly is commercially available, I'll look into switching to that: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/adobe-firefly-ai-legal-fees

I feel I need to weigh in to ask for clarification, does this mean you're removing the AI generator until a more ethical one is made?

Edited June 15, 2023 by TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow

[YCMaker]

1 hour ago, TheImmaculateDreadLordCowCow said:

I feel I need to weigh in to ask for clarification, does this mean you're removing the AI generator until a more ethical one is made?

I'll be keeping it up in the interim since it's been very popular with users of the card maker, and a lot of work went into its creation. Other AI generation tools like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney are already being widely used to create images that are then imported into the card maker, so this feature exists as a convenience for those users.

[Horu]

37 minutes ago, YCMaker said:

I'll be keeping it up in the interim since it's been very popular with users of the card maker, and a lot of work went into its creation. Other AI generation tools like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney are already being widely used to create images that are then imported into the card maker, so this feature exists as a convenience for those users.

I appreciate your input on the subject. But there are two itsy bitsy issues with the generator aside from the ethics thing.

1) it sometimes produces a black box (this is a bigger issue as the card maker counts it as an image)

2) sometimes, it generates nothing at all and you have to try again.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

4 minutes ago, KH911 said:

I just saw this discussion now and decided to weigh on this as well:

1. I'm not aware of how AI generates art, so that might change things. I agree that artists/writers/etc. should be credited for their work, and if I was using art made by someone else, I'll make sure to credit them if I can (hard to credit stock images). However, AI generated art is completely new material, it's newly created and belongs to the AI, which is something you cannot credit. Now if the AI generation uses other artists material without crediting them, that would be a problem the AI generation tool, but it's not fair to guilt someone for using the tool. If I prompt an AI to create art for my card, all I did was use an existing tool, the fault lies with the one who created the tool. As someone else stated, using AI generated images is no different from using stock images.

2. Nothing on this site is Konami's property. We create the cards, we (or AI) create the art, so Konami has no grounds to copyright strike anything. Even if YCM made money off of this, it's still the YCM user's property, not Konami's, so they shouldn't be able to take legal action. Now on the off-chance that Konami is able to sue, AI changes nothing. Whether the art is human or AI generated, it's still a Yugioh card and Konami would come after it regardless.

3. Before the AI art generator was implemented on this site, I didn't even use the card maker because I had no access to art. I'm not an artist, I don't know any artists, and I'm not willing to pay someone for art on something I do just for fun. The existence of the AI art generator allowed to actually create some images so my cards are a bit more presentable.

4. I don't think AI art is ever going to outclass human artists. As several others have already said, AI art is bland, generic, and usually isn't even what I want. Every time I post a card that used AI art, I always apologize for terrible art and mention that it's AI generated and was outside of my control. If someone wants high quality, they will always ask a person for it. This applies to all creative content, humans will always put out higher quality than computers can. So having the AI generator on this site isn't really detrimental to the artists on this site, because if someone wants high quality, they'll ask a person to do it. Meanwhile, it helps all the countless people who aren't able to create art or get someone else to do their art.

5. For the people saying using AI art removes any creativity from designing cards. Art is a small part. This is Yugioh not an art gallery. Our main products are the cards, their effects, how they interact with each other. Art is only 1 part of the equation. For non-artists, art is 0 part of the equation. I've lost count of all the cards I created, but they're all different, unique, and creative. I spend several hours researching the naming behind archetypes so I can make a name that fits the theme, thinking of different effects that are strong, but also feel fun and fair and fit the theme of the archetype. It's unfair and disingenuous to act like people who use AI art lack creativity and "want the easy way", it's just not true. It's a tool that helps people who can't make art, actually have something presentable instead of just posting text.

That said, YCM mentioned using a different method of generating art. I'm all for it, especially if it's more ethical. However, completely removing AI generator from the site is a bad imo since there are countless people who simply have no other way of making art for their cards, so image generation on the site needs to exist in some capacity.

You do bring up some good points yeah but I still think what these companies are training their AI Art on is not consented to they stole a whole bunch of Art of People and that sucks! >;( I may not like AI Art Generators but at least Adobe doesn't steal Art from the Artists and the images that Adobe Trained their AI on its on their Adobe Stock Websites and how they get images is buy Paying $$$ Actual People to either submit Sample Art or Real Life photos of Trees, Rocks, Water, or anything Nature based like Animals and Forests, Houses, Cards, and People who given Consent to be taken picture of, etc look Adobe may be greedy with Subscriptions fees *cough* *cough* Photoshop being paywalled really hard but I want to give them 2 good points 1 they threat their employees well and with respect, and 2 They Pay the People to use the images they post on Adobe Stockphoto you can make $$$ money of the photos you take and upload to that services and any Art Generated is from the Adobe Stockphoto Website so at least their not thieves and their very ethical when it comes to AI Art. I much prefer for now if People on this site didn't use AI Art and just do them in written formats.

[HQCardmaker]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:47 PM, Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan said:

Downvoted. AI Art is Evil

AI 'Art' is Evil. AI 'Narrowing' is not. AI should be used to narrow down an approach, not outright replace styles with a 'perfect' style. Especially since AI still acts like a 'yes man' infant that gets some art wrong. I think of it like this: If AI was used as a teacher, and could find sources-- real, human sources-- to recommend that could refine someone's work a little better, it could, in theory, help a little bit. Help-- but not replace. It is still up to the artists to contact each other and share, and it is still up to the artists to use as many good references for their work as possible. AI just 'layers' what uses references... as references themselves... and it doesn't even do that good of a job at it. It might one day, but that is far and away.

The most evil thing I've noticed an AI do is in a story where it will declare its interpretation of a character as 'the real character'; the author should dictate where to draw the line in the multiversal sand, and even then, an AI is a fair-weather partner at best-- our weather... not exclusively its own.

Edited June 20, 2023 by HQCardmaker
Had to give an example of AIs being evil within AI 'Art'.

[Horu]

So could DC sew Akira Toriyama for Goku's origin story? Maybe Goku's battle with Vegeta and Nappa? No. There is nothing illegal about the AI generator. If you don't believe me, use it to create art for a copywritten/trademarked character. It will create its own version instead of using parts of other artworks. Of course, it will still have the important bits that make up the character you requested. But effectively, creators are always using bits and pieces of other media for thier own stuff. Super Sonic was around well before Super Saiyan. The art acquired is used to train the AI, not be used in the AI's own creation.

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

2 hours ago, YCMaker said:

I agree, the unattributed use of art in the training of these models is concerning, and there are still a lot of unknown in terms of copyright law and how it pertains to AI generated images. I think the best solution is to eventually use an image generator that was ethically trained. Once Adobe Firefly is commercially available, I'll look into switching to that: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/adobe-firefly-ai-legal-fees

Thank You someone who finally understands how Artists feel and how copyright works unlong with AI Art. But I gotta say that Adobe Firefly is more ethical since it belongs to the company because they people who take stock photos hands them off to Adobe they get money for it and Adobe accires the rights so and they don't use Artistes real artwork they only use the things people gave to them or that belong to them.

I'm not anagist AI Art if the training data is ethical but what I'm a against is Stable Diffusion, MidJorney, etc cause they stole people's art and that's not acceptable.

@Horu @Loleo So does everyone agree with me?

Edited June 15, 2023 by Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan

[Zamazenta the OS-Tan Fan]

5 hours ago, Horu said:

I appreciate your input on the subject. But there are two itsy bitsy issues with the generator aside from the ethics thing.

1) it sometimes produces a black box (this is a bigger issue as the card maker counts it as an image)

2) sometimes, it generates nothing at all and you have to try again.

This bit is quite valid. You're just applying an image for your own personal use.

No Don't Defend spixi he doesn't think about this ethically so his option don't matter that's why I down voted him also I'm sorry if it looks like I'm being Toxic but I'm on Defense of The Artist not your fanstices about AI Art.

[spixi]

In my opinion, the artwork of a realistic card is just a representative illustration. The creative stuff is the card text itself. So, there is no difference whether you use AI artwork or any free cliparts. Of course, that would be different, when you actually print and sell the cards, but this would violate the copyrights and trademark rights of Konami anyways.

Edited June 12, 2023 by spixi

[Horu]

2 hours ago, YCMaker said:

I'll be keeping it up in the interim since it's been very popular with users of the card maker, and a lot of work went into its creation. Other AI generation tools like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney are already being widely used to create images that are then imported into the card maker, so this feature exists as a convenience for those users.

I appreciate your input on the subject. But there are two itsy bitsy issues with the generator aside from the ethics thing.

1) it sometimes produces a black box (this is a bigger issue as the card maker counts it as an image)

2) sometimes, it generates nothing at all and you have to try again.

On 6/12/2023 at 5:46 PM, spixi said:

In my opinion, the artwork of a realistic card is just a representative illustration. The creative stuff is the card text itself. So, there is no difference whether you use AI artwork or any free cliparts. Of course, that would be different, when you actually print and sell the cards, but this would violate the copyrights and trademark rights of Konami anyways.

This bit is quite valid. You're just applying an image for your own personal use.