Change to TAS Conditions - Use of AI

[MongooseMatt]

Hey everyone,

We have just made a change to the use of AI on the TAS programme - you can see the full details here:

Thread 'Traveller, TAS, and AI'

Tuesday at 11:58 AM

Hey everyone,

We have just made a change to the TAS programme on Drivethru and wanted to let you all know about it, and the reasons why this change has been made.

First off, we are aware that there are many Referees out there using AI in their home games to quickly generate encounters, adventure ideas and the likes of character portraits and landscapes. This is a good use of AI, especially for those of us with zero artistic talent - the ability to quickly flash up a screen or printout with what the Travellers see in a one-off encounter is obviously useful.

Problems start popping up when...

• MongooseMatt
• Replies: 142
• Forum: Traveller

• 
• 

And on Drivethru, here:

https://help.drivethrurpg.com/hc/en-us/articles/12723305966871-Mongoose-The-Travellers-Aid-Society-TAS

 

[jwlovell]

Hey,

Appreciate you taking the time to spell out the new TAS policy on AI. It’s clear this wasn’t just a checkbox change—you folks care about the work, and you’re trying to protect something that’s got soul. That matters. Traveller’s been around the block longer than most of us, and I get wanting to keep the noise out.

But here’s the thing.

Not all of us using AI are out to crank out junk. Some of us are just trying to get a decent-looking ship interior or a desert moon skyline without blowing a paycheck. We’re not replacing creativity—we’re just short on budget, not imagination. AI’s just the wrench in the toolbox. Nobody freaked out over Photoshop or 3D assets, so why throw this one in the incinerator?

The line you drew—“art needs an artist”—I get it. But let’s be honest, that line’s been blurry for a long time. You think a guy feeding clever prompts into a generator, then tweaking it for an hour to get something that feels right—he’s not an artist? Tell that to Duchamp and his urinal.

And look—slop? Yeah, there’s slop. Seen it. We’ve all seen RPGs with all the flavor of instant oatmeal. But they were written by real people. Slop’s got nothing to do with AI. It’s got everything to do with whether the person gives a damn.

What this new policy does, though, is make it tougher for the folks on the fringe—the one-person outfit trying to put out their first adventure, the gal with great ideas but no cash for an illustrator. You’re not just keeping out the spam bots. You’re locking out a whole lot of good intentions with nowhere else to go. Thing is, there’s a better way to handle it. Set some boundaries. Require disclosure. Say “no AI art unless you edited it, added to it, made it yours.” No scraping, no clickbait garbage. Just give folks a bar to clear, and let them prove their work’s got heart.

You’re trying to stop the future from running roughshod over the present. I respect that. But the future’s already here—it’s just a question of who gets to use it, and how.

Let’s not throw out the tools just because some folks use them wrong. Let’s raise the bar, not build a fence.

Respectfully,

A Traveller fan who still writes, types, with both hands—

Now those fancy digital cameras - those arent real photographs - got to use film and develope them yourself if you want to be a true artist…(thats me being snarky in case some folks think that was a serious dig vs cameras).

 

[Terry Mixon]

Hey,

Appreciate you taking the time to spell out the new TAS policy on AI. It’s clear this wasn’t just a checkbox change—you folks care about the work, and you’re trying to protect something that’s got soul. That matters. Traveller’s been around the block longer than most of us, and I get wanting to keep the noise out.

But here’s the thing.

Not all of us using AI are out to crank out junk. Some of us are just trying to get a decent-looking ship interior or a desert moon skyline without blowing a paycheck. We’re not replacing creativity—we’re just short on budget, not imagination. AI’s just the wrench in the toolbox. Nobody freaked out over Photoshop or 3D assets, so why throw this one in the incinerator?

The line you drew—“art needs an artist”—I get it. But let’s be honest, that line’s been blurry for a long time. You think a guy feeding clever prompts into a generator, then tweaking it for an hour to get something that feels right—he’s not an artist? Tell that to Duchamp and his urinal.

And look—slop? Yeah, there’s slop. Seen it. We’ve all seen RPGs with all the flavor of instant oatmeal. But they were written by real people. Slop’s got nothing to do with AI. It’s got everything to do with whether the person gives a damn.

What this new policy does, though, is make it tougher for the folks on the fringe—the one-person outfit trying to put out their first adventure, the gal with great ideas but no cash for an illustrator. You’re not just keeping out the spam bots. You’re locking out a whole lot of good intentions with nowhere else to go. Thing is, there’s a better way to handle it. Set some boundaries. Require disclosure. Say “no AI art unless you edited it, added to it, made it yours.” No scraping, no clickbait garbage. Just give folks a bar to clear, and let them prove their work’s got heart.

You’re trying to stop the future from running roughshod over the present. I respect that. But the future’s already here—it’s just a question of who gets to use it, and how.

Let’s not throw out the tools just because some folks use them wrong. Let’s raise the bar, not build a fence.

Respectfully,

A Traveller fan who still writes, types, with both hands—

Now those fancy digital cameras - those arent real photographs - got to use film and develope them yourself if you want to be a true artist…(thats me being snarky in case some folks think that was a serious dig vs cameras).

Not to reignite an argument that we had here about this a while back, but these tools were built on work stolen from artists and used without permission or compensation. Fruit of the poisoned tree. Slop is one reason not to want AI, but the other one is moral in nature. These corporations took something they shouldn't have, used it to train their product, and now want to use it to replace the people that they wronged. That by itself is reason enough to say no to it.

I'm sure some people will disagree with this assessment--and they contorted themselves to explain why it was fine--but I don't buy it. Generative AI is theft and I, for one, will never support it. I'll speak out against it any chance I get. If others want to use it, that's on them. I applaud Mongoose for taking the side of the creatives. Art does need an artist, and a tool built on wholesale theft isn't the way to go.

 

[boggo2300]

Not to reignite an argument that we had here about this a while back, but these tools were built on work stolen from artists and used without permission or compensation. Fruit of the poisoned tree. Slop is one reason not to want AI, but the other one is moral in nature. These corporations took something they shouldn't have, used it to train their product, and now want to use it to replace the people that they wronged. That by itself is reason enough to say no to it.

I'm sure some people will disagree with this assessment--and they contorted themselves to explain why it was fine--but I don't buy it. Generative AI is theft and I, for one, will never support it. I'll speak out against it any chance I get. If others want to use it, that's on them. I applaud Mongoose for taking the side of the creatives. Art does need an artist, and a took built on wholesale theft isn't the way to go.

Well said Terry

 

[Condottiere]

Outside of ethical issues, it's more about legal ones.

You can't copyright it, being non human creation.

And, if it can be, you don't want to have to pay lawyers to argue it out.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Not all of us using AI are out to crank out junk. Some of us are just trying to get a decent-looking ship interior or a desert moon skyline without blowing a paycheck. We’re not replacing creativity—we’re just short on budget, not imagination.

This is understandable.

However, here is the dividing line - such a person wants to use Traveller and be paid for it (if not, knock yourself out with the Fair Use Policy!). If you want the money... spend a little money. If you do not have the visual artistic ability yourself (and I very much sympathise with that on a personal level...) a 'proper' artist is really not expensive. Seriously,. a 20-30-odd page PDF need not require hundreds and hundreds of Dollars of art. Start with black and white line drawings, perhaps, they are still very evocative to Traveller fans. Use deck plan creators.

This is, after all, how Mongoose started..

That is just a little advice, onto your wider point...

The Tsunami of Slop I mentioned is coming. It is difficult to see the likes of (say) Netflix or Amazon not jumping on complete AI-generation of content, and that is a fairly scary future.

But we can draw a line with Traveller.

Think of it this way...

One day, in the not too distant future, we may be able to type in a prompt or ten, and within seconds a complete Traveller book appears, text and art, ready to go. Maybe a human tweaks it, maybe they don't.

Once we get there, without this rule, we will all wake up one morning and find that the TAS programme has suddenly expanded, overnight, by a couple of hundred titles. By the end of the week, it is a couple of thousands, and the pace of growth is increasing.

At that point, these generated titles will have washed out damn near everything else that came before, and it will only get worse from there. The value of the TAS programme will diminish to near zero and it will be extremely difficult to find anything people actually want to use in a game.

That is the problem. We are not against AI as a tool, we just want to make the attempt to avoid one possible future for AI in the creation of Traveller.

 

[Anstett]

Now those fancy digital cameras - those arent real photographs - got to use film and develope them yourself if you want to be a true artist…(thats me being snarky in case some folks think that was a serious dig vs cameras).

I understand the snark... but this is a real thing that happened.

Photoshop magic lasso tool has evolved into a full suite of programs. There are photographers now (and apps you can use) that will verify the image is unaltered outside of the camera to 'prove' it was the artist/photographer and not the tools that made the shot special.

The shift to algorithmic spelling/grammar checks and programs like Grammarly have very much blurred the line on just how much AI is involved in text. Without using any other generative tool to create the text.

 

[jwlovell]

This is understandable.

However, here is the dividing line - such a person wants to use Traveller and be paid for it (if not, knock yourself out with the Fair Use Policy!). If you want the money... spend a little money. If you do not have the visual artistic ability yourself (and I very much sympathise with that on a personal level...) a 'proper' artist is really not expensive. Seriously,. a 20-30-odd page PDF need not require hundreds and hundreds of Dollars of art. Start with black and white line drawings, perhaps, they are still very evocative to Traveller fans. Use deck plan creators.

This is, after all, how Mongoose started..

That is just a little advice, onto your wider point...

The Tsunami of Slop I mentioned is coming. It is difficult to see the likes of (say) Netflix or Amazon not jumping on complete AI-generation of content, and that is a fairly scary future.

But we can draw a line with Traveller.

Think of it this way...

One day, in the not too distant future, we may be able to type in a prompt or ten, and within seconds a complete Traveller book appears, text and art, ready to go. Maybe a human tweaks it, maybe they don't.

Once we get there, without this rule, we will all wake up one morning and find that the TAS programme has suddenly expanded, overnight, by a couple of hundred titles. By the end of the week, it is a couple of thousands, and the pace of growth is increasing.

At that point, these generated titles will have washed out damn near everything else that came before, and it will only get worse from there. The value of the TAS programme will diminish to near zero and it will be extremely difficult to find anything people actually want to use in a game.

That is the problem. We are not against AI as a tool, we just want to make the attempt to avoid one possible future for AI in the creation of Traveller.

Not to reignite an argument that we had here about this a while back, but these tools were built on work stolen from artists and used without permission or compensation. Fruit of the poisoned tree. Slop is one reason not to want AI, but the other one is moral in nature. These corporations took something they shouldn't have, used it to train their product, and now want to use it to replace the people that they wronged. That by itself is reason enough to say no to it.

I'm sure some people will disagree with this assessment--and they contorted themselves to explain why it was fine--but I don't buy it. Generative AI is theft and I, for one, will never support it. I'll speak out against it any chance I get. If others want to use it, that's on them. I applaud Mongoose for taking the side of the creatives. Art does need an artist, and a tool built on wholesale theft isn't the way to go.

If we’re going to condemn technology based on its origins, we better be ready to log off Facebook, ditch the internet, and abandon smartphones too. Otherwise, it’s just selective outrage.

Yes, the early development of generative AI involved large-scale scraping without proper consent. That’s a legitimate criticism. But to claim that this permanently makes all generative AI “inherently bad” is a fallacy. If we applied that standard across the board, we’d also have to reject the internet (built on mass appropriation of data), modern music (deeply rooted in uncredited cultural traditions), and countless scientific and technological advances that were born out of imperfect beginnings.

Yet we don’t do that — and for good reason. We recognize that progress often comes through messy origins, and we work to improve it. That’s exactly what is happening now with AI: newer models are using licensed data, rights-respecting practices are growing, and meaningful regulations are being demanded by creators themselves. Pretending that nothing can be redeemed simply because of its history ignores how real ethical progress actually happens. Ethics matter — but so does intellectual honesty. If we only apply outrage when it’s trendy, we’re not arguing for ethics. We’re just arguing for attention.

Gatekeeping new technology while ignoring the messy reality of every tool you already use isn’t ethical. It’s just hypocritical. For example - Facebook’s entire history is full of IP appropriation. The core idea for Facebook came from the Harvard Connection founders (ConnectU), resulting in a $65 million settlement. Later, Facebook copied Snapchat’s “Stories” feature almost pixel for pixel after trying to buy them, then cloned TikTok with Instagram Reels. Facebook didn’t invent these ideas — they aggressively borrowed them and built on top of others’ work, just like many tech companies have. If using technology built partly on others’ ideas is inherently unethical, then by that logic, using Facebook itself would be just as problematic. Let’s be consistent.

 

[jwlovell]

This is understandable.

However, here is the dividing line - such a person wants to use Traveller and be paid for it (if not, knock yourself out with the Fair Use Policy!). If you want the money... spend a little money. If you do not have the visual artistic ability yourself (and I very much sympathise with that on a personal level...) a 'proper' artist is really not expensive. Seriously,. a 20-30-odd page PDF need not require hundreds and hundreds of Dollars of art. Start with black and white line drawings, perhaps, they are still very evocative to Traveller fans. Use deck plan creators.

This is, after all, how Mongoose started..

That is just a little advice, onto your wider point...

The Tsunami of Slop I mentioned is coming. It is difficult to see the likes of (say) Netflix or Amazon not jumping on complete AI-generation of content, and that is a fairly scary future.

But we can draw a line with Traveller.

Think of it this way...

One day, in the not too distant future, we may be able to type in a prompt or ten, and within seconds a complete Traveller book appears, text and art, ready to go. Maybe a human tweaks it, maybe they don't.

Once we get there, without this rule, we will all wake up one morning and find that the TAS programme has suddenly expanded, overnight, by a couple of hundred titles. By the end of the week, it is a couple of thousands, and the pace of growth is increasing.

At that point, these generated titles will have washed out damn near everything else that came before, and it will only get worse from there. The value of the TAS programme will diminish to near zero and it will be extremely difficult to find anything people actually want to use in a game.

That is the problem. We are not against AI as a tool, we just want to make the attempt to avoid one possible future for AI in the creation of Traveller.

Hi Matt,

Thanks again for taking the time to engage on this. I really appreciate the thought you’ve put into defending Traveller’s creative identity—and I hope you will continue to allow constructive dialogue on the topic

I wanted to follow up on one particular angle that I don’t think is getting enough attention in the current discussion: the intersection of capability and time.

I’m one of those creators who can, quite literally, generate any kind of illustration I want for a Traveller project. I’ve got the CGI tools, asset libraries, and artistic skill to build scenes from scratch—starships, alien worlds, character portraits, cinematic shots, you name it. I don’t rely on AI because I lack talent or discipline—I rely on it when time becomes the limiting factor.

I work full time. Some days, I can sit down and create an image from the ground up. I have one contests by doing cgi and motion graphics work. Other days, I barely have an hour to myself. Nowadays In that hour, experimenting with AI lets me rough in a visual, explore tone, test composition, change styles, clean up composite images and absolutely get something usable—especially if I’m directing it with my own eye and then editing the result. But my efforts here I limit to personal use, and not for publishing, because organizations that I want to create content for are blanket banning even hybrid use, even though they are already allowing generative AI content to be sold on Roll20, because it “theybcant trust the tools that detect AI”

This isn’t about replacing creativity. It’s about scaling it—leveraging tools to get my own ideas out faster. Just as writers use grammar tools or layout software, visual creators like me are loooking at using AI because it shortens the gap between what we imagine and what we can share.

Which brings me to the economic side. As you know, DriveThruRPG’s metals data reveals that most titles—likely over 85%—sell fewer than 50 copies. Even a modest investment in art, say $100, is often more than a product will ever make back. That’s not me speculating—that’s the math.

When you suggest that authors “spend a little money,” that assumes a reward exists. But in most cases, there isn’t one. Most TAS creators aren’t making games to get rich. They’re doing it out of love for the setting. That passion shouldn’t be punished because someone chooses a faster tool to get across the finish line.

You’re right to worry about a tsunami of AI-generated slop. That future is possible. But banning AI outright won’t stop that future. It’ll just guarantee that when AI gets indistinguishably good (and it will), you’ll be stuck with a policy that’s impossible to enforce and already outdated. (I ran your rexent comic through some tools that pointed out some very specific “possible” use of AI found in it - so those artists may very well have used some AI generated elements or assist in certain images here and there - I can send you specifics if you want)

You’ve said you’re not anti-AI, just trying to avoid a worst-case future. I get that. But I’d encourage a different approach:

1. Set a clear standard of quality.
2. Require disclosure when AI is used.
3. Let human judgment decide if the final product meets the bar.

Because frankly, most of us aren’t out to flood the market. We’re just trying to tell good stories—and sometimes we use the best tools we have to tell them a little faster.

Thanks for continuing the conversation. Traveller means a lot to many of us—and we want to see it thrive, not just survive.

 

[MongooseMatt]

This isn’t about replacing creativity. It’s about scaling it—leveraging tools to get my own ideas out faster. Just as writers use grammar tools or layout software, visual creators like me are loooking at using AI because it shortens the gap between what we imagine and what we can share.

There is value to AI tools, absolutely, and that is not the point we are arguing. I'll give an example...

When we commission an art piece, the artist will provide several sketches to demonstrate composition - basically, where everything is going to go in the picture. While these are just rough sketches, they obviously take time to do.

So, some of our artists have started using AI to very rapidly (near instantly!) create composition mock-ups. They fire them back to us, and we say 'yes, that one right there, that is what we are looking for.'

Here is the important bit though. Once the composition has been selected, the generated piece is put to one side and the actual final piece is created from scratch.

We are all for AI making lives easier and more fulfilling. What we are against is the removal of the artist from the artistic process. And the reason for that is because what the effect of the removal of art from society will have.

We cannot stop this, obviously. But we can create a little Traveller-shaped island.

When you suggest that authors “spend a little money,” that assumes a reward exists. But in most cases, there isn’t one. Most TAS creators aren’t making games to get rich. They’re doing it out of love for the setting. That passion shouldn’t be punished because someone chooses a faster tool to get across the finish line.

There is an old quote (was it from Roosevelt, or am I mis-remembering?) that basically says 'If a business cannot afford to pay a decent wage, it has no right to be in business.'

Okay, that is a bit harsh. Let's apply some good old-fashioned capitalism to this instead...

If you have the passion but are not in funds, as it were... let your creativity find a solution. If you do not have access to the big expensive pieces of art and free art packs are lacking... find another way. Produce something that does not need art. Find other ways to break up walls of text (flick through some of our books to get some ideas on how to do this ). Look at public domain photos.

Again, this is exactly what we here at Mongoose had to do when we first started. We only had the resources to do short 32 page black and white booklets. It took us time to build up the page count, then move to hardbacks, then move to full colour printing.

Here's an example - our first Judge Dredd RPG (the D20 one) looks like it is a full colour printed book... but it is not. That is actually a black and white printing with one colour insert. The insert was done in such a way that it effectively popped up in different locations within the book.

Now, each page had colour borders - but they were printed in one run, and then the printers went back and did the black and white printing on top of that for the main body of the book.

And that is creativity at work. We had limitations, and found ways round them to produce a better looking title.

Limitations are not always things to be afraid of when it comes to art

I can send you specifics if you want)

Yes, absolutely. I want to look into that.

Because frankly, most of us aren’t out to flood the market. We’re just trying to tell good stories—and sometimes we use the best tools we have to tell them a little faster.

This is true, and I fully agree. But it will only take one bad actor to upset the cart for everyone. And there will be more than one bad actor out there

 

[Arkathan]

Hey,

Some of us are just trying to get a decent-looking ship interior or a desert moon skyline without blowing a paycheck.

Take a look at Terragen. I played with the beta around fifteen years ago and had a ball with it, even though it did not support imported models back then and I had to use its output as an added background. There is a free version and a monthly version if you don't want to shell out Paint or Photoshop money.
It allows you to import models from other programs.
Randomized height maps and procedurally generated textures. Rendered, not AI.

 

[Hardwire]

There is value to AI tools, absolutely, and that is not the point we are arguing. I'll give an example...

When we commission an art piece, the artist will provide several sketches to demonstrate composition - basically, where everything is going to go in the picture. While these are just rough sketches, they obviously take time to do.

So, some of our artists have started using AI to very rapidly (near instantly!) create composition mock-ups. They fire them back to us, and we say 'yes, that one right there, that is what we are looking for.'

Here is the important bit though. Once the composition has been selected, the generated piece is put to one side and the actual final piece is created from scratch.

We are all for AI making lives easier and more fulfilling. What we are against is the removal of the artist from the artistic process. And the reason for that is because what the effect of the removal of art from society will have.

We cannot stop this, obviously. But we can create a little Traveller-shaped island.



There is an old quote (was it from Roosevelt, or am I mis-remembering?) that basically says 'If a business cannot afford to pay a decent wage, it has no right to be in business.'

Okay, that is a bit harsh. Let's apply some good old-fashioned capitalism to this instead...

If you have the passion but are not in funds, as it were... let your creativity find a solution. If you do not have access to the big expensive pieces of art and free art packs are lacking... find another way. Produce something that does not need art. Find other ways to break up walls of text (flick through some of our books to get some ideas on how to do this ). Look at public domain photos.

Again, this is exactly what we here at Mongoose had to do when we first started. We only had the resources to do short 32 page black and white booklets. It took us time to build up the page count, then move to hardbacks, then move to full colour printing.

Here's an example - our first Judge Dredd RPG (the D20 one) looks like it is a full colour printed book... but it is not. That is actually a black and white printing with one colour insert. The insert was done in such a way that it effectively popped up in different locations within the book.

Now, each page had colour borders - but they were printed in one run, and then the printers went back and did the black and white printing on top of that for the main body of the book.

And that is creativity at work. We had limitations, and found ways round them to produce a better looking title.

Limitations are not always things to be afraid of when it comes to art



Yes, absolutely. I want to look into that.



This is true, and I fully agree. But it will only take one bad actor to upset the cart for everyone. And there will be more than one bad actor out there

Ok, first thanks for the clarification.

Just trying to get further clarification. There are AI tools that you grad "X" arm and attach it to "Y" body, with "M" Head. Then that call that their Art. That is obviously using an AI tool to draw that picture. They didn't draw that arm, body, or head, they just arranged those parts. How is this addressed.

Another question. We have had known artists state that they use AI to "Touch up" their art, that AI touch-up comes from someone else's art. Does that count as AI.

When you ban AI how far is it going to go.

And Why protect just artist, do writers not count? It says "primarily written by AI language generators" That is very vague is it a simple majority of 51% is OK but 49% isn't.

Mongoose can do what they want, it is choice. Just limits community participation.

EDIT: Also you state that if you can't afford to be in business, you shouldn't be in business. There is also the fact that if you have a superior product others will want it. If the artist can't compete then they are in the wrong business.

Also a harsh outlook.

 

[middenface]

Take a look at Terragen. I played with the beta around fifteen years ago and had a ball with it, even though it did not support imported models back then and I had to use its output as an added background. There is a free version and a monthly version if you don't want to shell out Paint or Photoshop money.
It allows you to import models from other programs.
Randomized height maps and procedurally generated textures. Rendered, not AI.

Eon Vue (once known as Vue D'espirit is free and hell it's powerful. It will also allow imports. IIRC some famous movies used it...
I think Bryce might be free, or very cheap.

 

[Arkathan]

Eon Vue (once known as Vue D'espirit is free and hell it's powerful. It will also allow imports. IIRC some famous movies used it...
I think Bryce might be free, or very cheap.

Terragen was free when I played with it. Should have sprung the $20 for a perpetual license back when it was still $20.

Bryce is $22. Carrerra absorbed most of that functionality but is not cheap. Daz' Hexagon is free, but Blender gets updated, and Hex doesn't.

Vue page at Bentley

 

[jwlovell]

Take a look at Terragen. I played with the beta around fifteen years ago and had a ball with it, even though it did not support imported models back then and I had to use its output as an added background. There is a free version and a monthly version if you don't want to shell out Paint or Photoshop money.
It allows you to import models from other programs.
Randomized height maps and procedurally generated textures. Rendered, not AI.

I have about 16 TB of 3D assets purchased over the years, my first commercially contracted images for cover art for Iron Crown Enterprises were renders using Vue and DAZ3D with the Reality path tracing render plugin; and those were the first time I started learning 3D software tools I hurried up to learn use along with Poser; since then I added using Blender, Terragen, World Creator, Unity, Unreal, Iclone and Character Creator.

Ironically it was the disdain from folks that sneered at CGI that led me to look for ways to turn renders into paint or sketch styles, with years of mixed results with plugins, and then started seeing some very interesting and promising results using AI tools. But, given the backlash and outright hatred for AI regardless of whether it was ethically trained and regardless of the fact it was just to touch up and improve an image that I had composed and rendered, I stick to what wont have lynch mobs going after me. RPG games are just a hobby for me. The cool things I could do for this hobby by leveraging AI will have to wait to be seen.

It is a shame really, because traditional artists could be offering a service, where a group of them could train their own model on their art, and sell the images that are generated / curated with that service, and make far more income in the process than they ever had prior to AI.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, if you copy something, and then transform it, copyright can't be applied by the original creator.

However, with the case of taking a photograph, and Andy Warholling it into a cartoon imagine, this may no longer be possible.

 

[CyborgPrime]

I only have two titles where AI is involved in the art process for the cover art, but the reception of the titles is so good that I intend to redo most, if not all, of my covers. In some cases, I will just be running the existing art through an AI filter to unify the style (like yu would in Photoshop), in other cases I will be making all new covers or graphical elements.

The problem with most AI art policies is that they are not nuanced. For example - Adobe's AI is trained on it's own library of licensed stock art it has been developing for 30 years - this concern has been a non issue for about a year. If I add or edit any part of an image for cover art, let's say remove a blemish, I have to tag the ENTIRE product as AI-generated.

Some AI art is obvious - some has to be done on the honor system bc the average person can't tell the difference.

This TAS policy will limit my future participation in the program - I want the freedom to create the art and covers I want using the tools and methods at my disposal. I can't do that under the TAS program so I have to rethink my participation in it.