State of AI Generated Art in Board Games Survey.

And it comes out when you ask questions like a "small company" (< $250,000 annual income) well it matters more when the company is BIG and has the funds to make a project with investment into art (Not AI generated).

I think this is a very important distinction. Why?

Because if you know that you are RUNNING a "small company" you know a bit about the finances behind "Designing Games". You're either well to do to start with like some money put aside to help deliver your "creations" or you have very little money to start with.

Where it gets a bit fuzzy is when companies with more income (> $250,000 annual income) don't DISCLOSE that they have used AI Generated Art is where it gets me. Because this means that a company who can AFFORD to pay an illustrator chooses NOT to do so.

I love working with Artist and I've worked already with three (3) different ones. But the reality is that my "initial fund" is nearly gone and the reality is that my games need to START SELLING if I am going to continue down this very difficult path known as "Game Design".

Again why? Because it's a very competitive market and very niche in terms of what moves forwards and what does not. I'll be the first to disclose that "Battle Botz" (BB), my robot battling Card Game is using AI Generated Art. And without the AI Art, I would not be able to create illustration that look so ROBOTIC in nature and it could be difficult for an artist to render such creations as well. BB is still in early design phase and I have shelved the project just a bit... While I focus on SALES to try to earn some income.

Independent of the budget I would have, BB is an AI Generated Art Project. I want it to be that way simply because the robotic art is HARD to reproduce.

And I'm making like $0 annual income from designing games too.

I feel if you can't find an artist to make the kind of ART you WANT for your "design", well if AI Generated Art works for you... I would therefore use it and be done with it. If however you are a large company with a BIG budget (like > $250,000 annual income) well them I would only disclose that AI Art was used in a certain way (perhaps only one aspect of the game) and also be done with that too.

But having the money to pay of an Illustrator does NOT make a project go. Like I said there are situations in which AI Art is better than human made art and in some very niche applications (like my BB) it's hard to design the concepts that are required for the game/design.

So there are projects that CAN and CANNOT benefit from Generated AI Art.

If it's a question of NOT BEING ABLE to bring a product to market because you have too little INCOME or finances to pay for a real Artist or Illustrator or the subject matter (Topic) is specialized such that real art is hard to come by... Well then these are questions that remain debatable.

I know many will NOT like my position on this matter. Like I said, I enjoy working with Artists and Illustrators... But only when it is FEASIBLE. If it is NOT feasible (for whatever reasons and I've covered some of them above), well I believe that AI Generated Art is acceptable (as an alternative).

Your projects should not suffer just because you don't have sufficient INCOME or don't have someone who is capable of drawing what you are looking to bring to market, etc. etc.

I await the results of your poll... And see who agrees with whom.

Cheers!

So had I been a bit more patient, I would have learnt that MY approach to designing and manufacturing of "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)" (Quest) was incorrect.

I had put aside a fund of $30,000 CAD after several years of consulting with good sales numbers and sufficient EXTRA income for my "war chest".

Where I went WRONG was to decide to MANUFACTURE 10,000 Booster Packs for Quest. It was a colossal loss of $10,000 CAD to make the cards and $5,000 CAD to package them in booster packs (since the manufacturer did NOT have the capabilities to do BOTH).

Then as mentioned above $5,000 CAD went to Art and I was left with about $10,000 CAD after all was said and done. So my total LOSS was about $20,000 CAD after all was said and done.

My mistake (and it's important to understand) was that I MADE the game before I could ESTABLISH a RELATIONSHIP with SOMEONE who could SELL it. That sentence is very important and let me explain.

***

Okay the last item (#7) is a bit HARSH ... But it is TRUE. The road after a Crowdfunding Campaign is VERY TOUGH. Unless you know SOMEONE... Or have great networking skills that allows you to FIND the right person. It's going to be a loss in most instances.

BUT REMEMBER... A loss of $2,500 is much less than a loss of $20,000 CAD... You cut your losses early and spent a little bit and have not lost all your precious income. You tried and it maybe goes your way and maybe it doesn't.

Either way... DO NOT MANUFACTURE before you've established a SALES channel. Or a way to bring your game to market.

I learnt my lesson... It was costly ... But at least Quest is NOT dead... There is still some potential yet to be discovered soon enough!

Best.

Be sure to post the results or a LINK to BGG if you prefer. I rarely get the CHANCE to voice my opinion on BGG before someone tells me "You are wrong!" And that's usually the NORM over there and then more people criticize my Point-Of-View (POV).

This is the first time that I have seen people on BOTH (and in the middle) SIDES of the argument.

My POV is simple: if the AI has learnt how to DRAW and no longer requires images to make more illustrations and furthermore if said data can reside on a Home PC (like "Stable Diffusion" and their various models) well then it's a bit like me browsing the web for images of the American Flag. Since I don't know how many White & Red Lines in the flag, I see what is available on iStock for $x.00. I then decide with the information that I have LEARNT and use that KNOWLEDGE myself in illustrator and draw me a US Flag. Is this ILLEGAL? Is this IMMORAL?? Knowing full well that the person who drew the original Flag will NOT get any ROYALTIES because I made my own with SAID INFORMATION.

If that is wrong... We have a real problem with society. Or some people don't understand the implications of the side they are on.

Unfortunately I don't have the details as to HOW the AI goes about making Art.

And I THINK that if AI creates it's OWN "interpretation" of a prompt (whatever Technology you use...) then that AI should not only be LEGAL but be able to be used. If it's the SAME as me googling for a representation and then making MY own artwork, AI Generative Art is an innovation and it is NOT copying the source images used to TRAIN it.

If a AI Generative piece of Software like "Stable Diffusion" which *offers* several types of Models for different types of illustrations (like Comic, CGI/Rendered, Photo-realism, etc. etc.) can fit on a personal computer (because you must download the software and run it locally).

This means this is not some kind of issue with Bitcoin which requires a bunch of servers all trying to solve a mathematical equation and wasting electricity basically doing nothing important besides determining which "farm" solves the equation and earn the reward (mining).

This is obviously not the case with AI Generative Art. It's a low-overhead Technology which requires limited amounts of space to "generate" images. If an image takes 1000kbytes or 1 mb. The data it learns from such an image must be significantly smaller because nobody would be able to STORE such data on a home PC. And then you could argue ... Server farms cost a lot of money, require a lot of electricity and are environmentally "questionable". But this doesn't seem like the case with AI Generated Art... So that really makes me go... Hmmm.

Good stuff! I'm still in the middle. And I appreciate you taking the time to make that POLL and go through the outcomes (as you see fit)!

Cheers.

So the AI Generator was training on "copyright" images... However the images in question were never banned from being used for "Machine Learning" purposes.

Prior to the inception of AI Generated Art, "fair-use" by Human Learning was acceptable to a certain degree. There were copyrights on "Brands" like Disney Characters and other popular brands like Marvel, etc. etc. which meant that some likeness would be protected and therefore Copyrighted.

However as an Artist, you may inspire yourself from said "brands" and generate your OWN art and you would be still in "fair-use".

Furthermore my example of the American Flag, demonstrates that Human Learning is possible and is "fair-use" too.

So the argument is: this is a Technological Advance (Transformative), it doesn't require any further artwork to generate more artwork, and it used Machine Learning at the time of training.

Therefore the logical conclusion must be that AI Generated Art is a perfectly acceptable source of art for SOME cases... Let me explain.

If you are trying to have UNIQUE style across a Game, then the art may be hard to ensure that the various art assets have the same "Look & Feel" and even a simple LOGO can also sometimes challenging to achieve consistency. Some AI Art takes too many liberties and adds a sixth finger or a third eye, etc. etc. It is far from perfect.

My POV is ... Take it with a grain of salt: you can use it some instances but just don't expect to have ONLY AI Generative Art. In other words, don't bet the farm only on AI Generated Art. But also don't be surprised if you start seeing more and more of it! This doesn't feel like a FAD TBH.

Sincerely.

Simply put I didn't STEAL anything, I just LEARNT from the image online. Same goes for the Machine Learning: they didn't steal the images, they just LEARNT from them. They don't need said images either to draw more art. Just as I don't need to BUY the American Flag on iStock.

Now there existed provisions in the LAW which allowed "Human Learning" but there was nothing about "Machine Learning". Obviously it's a bit different in scale and scope. And while as Humans we've been doing this for a LONG TIME, there is little in the LAW about "Machines" and how they can learn. Basically it's NOT new but this kind of Global application IS NEW.

Well relatively new (like maybe 5-Years). And therefore the LEGAL ramifications have yet to be "solidified".