AI in trading card games
There has been a lot of controversy around the creation of A.I. created artwork. Some individuals feel that this type of artwork is stolen and doesn't offer any credit to the original artist that inspired these new creations. While others feel that this A.I. created artwork is still a valid form of art and something that should not only be copyrightable, but widely accepted. This raises an ethical question regarding how similar we can allow A.I. to produce art before it becomes less of an inspirational piece and more of a copy. Not to mention the current legal questions regarding who owns the artwork created by A.I. and should it be copyrightable?
Meet Aaron
Over the past few years, the attention around A.I. artwork has expanded greatly and led many to believe that this is something entirely new. Which isn't the case, as A.I. for art has been around for decades, beginning with Aaron. Aaron is an A.I. powered art software created by the British artist Harold Cohen in 1974. He created this A.I. for art because he wanted to see if technology was capable of creating something to the same quality that very few artists have been able to reach. In doing this, he fed his A.I. a limited amount of data.
“It actually “knows” very little about the world - it recognizes the shape of people, potted plants, trees and simply objects such as boxes and tables.” - Harold Cohen.
This was done with the intention of focusing on the A.I.'s art skills and not simply its ability to reproduce known items or people. This is a bit different compared to what we are seeing in more recent creations of A.I. art software, as many of these software's have been fed large amounts of data with the hope of creating a large variety of different inspired art pieces.
Who Should Have the Credit?
Now that we have established the history behind digital art software with A.I., we are now left with the important question regarding who owns the art when it is created with an A.I software?
There are several different theories about ownership for A.I. created art, but as it stands there isn't a legal agreement on who is the official owner or if the ownership is shared.
This leaves room for the companies that own the A.I. to possibly lay their claim on these artworks.
There is also the possibility that the engineer that created the A.I. could own a part of it, due to the time and data they put into creating the A.I. Not to mention the dozens of artists whose works were used as data for the A.I.
and have helped create many different inspired pieces of work. Or lastly, should the user who orchestrated the design and made the final choices own the work? Regardless of how you feel personally about this manner,
there has been a lot of push back from companies who don't want to see A.I. created work used on their projects as there is still the question of who owns it.
Wizards of the Coast Bans A.I.
Wizards of the Coast is well known amongst certain parts of the gaming community.
Whether you're someone who plays TCG style games like Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons you have likely heard of Wizards of the Coast.
Not only do they produce large amounts of written work, such as D&D guides or the details on their Magic: The Gathering cards, they also produce art for these cards and their guides.
Though most of this art and writing is done by freelance creators, there is still the concern that A.I. could be slipped into their work.
Which is exactly what happened to the 2023 D&D sourcebook Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants.
One of the artists, that wasn't directly named, had slipped A.I. into their artwork and presented it as their own.
Though Wizards of the Coast had decided to continue on with the release of the new sourcebook as is, they made it clear that A.I.
would not be allowed in any of their future works.
That lasted until January 4th when the official Magic: The Gathering X account displayed a promotional image for one of their new sets that had clearly been altered with A.I.
Despite it being recognized early on by fans, the social media controller of the Magic: The Gathering account was quick to reject this claim, saying that this art wasn't made with A.I.
Three days later this statement would be revoked and a statement admitting to A.I. usage would be published.
Once again, they confirmed their stance that they wouldn't be using A.I. in their work, but many artists are left feeling concerned as the details of new publications seem to keep falling through the cracks.
Copyright Law
For many up-and-coming designers there is the question of why does it matter if A.I is used in any of these projects?
Why should we care as designers and why do companies like Wizards of the Coast care?
In short, it is because work created by A.I. is not copyrightable in the United States.
This stems from the concern that we still don't know who really owns the work, so the United States copyright office has determined that they won't issue copyrights because of this.
This not only leaves companies in a vulnerable position as their work could be copied or claimed by someone else depending on the future development of art in A.I.
As it stands now, there are several court cases in the United States that have raised the legitimacy of A.I. created art and asked if it is a form of theft or if these works can be copyrighted.
Luckily, this issue is something that the U.S Copyright Office has decided to investigate.
In August 2023 a forum was opened for people to submit comments on the issue to the government, this forum was open until December 2023.
As time continues to move forward, the federal government will be taking their time reviewing these comments, before releasing an official statement later this year.
With that comes the possibility that a decision could be made regarding who owns art created with A.I.
Wrap up
As A.I. and art continue to advance we are left with several uncertainties regarding who owns these new creations, but what we do know is that companies want little to do with these new advancements. There is too large of a possibility that they could one day lose the rights to the work that they thought that they owned. Which is why they would prefer to stick with art created by an individual, but despite these concerns there are new regulations being evaluated as we speak. New regulations that will affect the way we copyright art, determine who owns what, and it might possibly lead to reshaping of fair use laws regarding art. Though this is new and fascinating from a legal perspective, the possibility that artists or companies could have their work undermined leaves room for concern.