AI book cover

[Finchbearer]

The phoenix in my avatar cost me $40, including tip, ten years ago. Today it would be about $120-150.

The name needs a re-brand!

 

[Finchbearer]

Book covers are one thing. Also, those are the covers they chose. I can prompt engineer better covers than that, and I'm an amateur. Also, I'm pretty sure that Bing Image Creator and others grant a free use license in their ToS as the prompt is your own. The engine is simply a tool. Saying that the AI generator owners having a stake in your copyright because you used their engine is like saying Microsoft has a stake in your royalties because you typed it on Word. Any court would immediately reject such a spurious argument on its face. As always, read the ToS.

However, again, what about those who publish 350+ tomes like Player's Handbooks for their own systems? You expect people to be able to afford thousands in commission fees to put in images of dwarves and elves and castles? Psh. License-free artwork suffers overall from a lack of quality or specific subject matter that you may need. Hence, why I say go to dA and look at some of the artists who actually run their own engines offline and build their material in layers over the course of weeks. The amount of effort they put in is just as labor intensive as people using digital tools such as a Wacom.

*coughs* then these ‘designers’ should be able to come up with an original image if they’re so damn good.

Either way, do what you want to do, but I think that AI has a certain look right now that will not age well, and I also think the copyright laws are murky at best. We are not talking about such a well established institution as typefaces you can use royalty free. Typefaces such as Georgia and Garamond are royalty free because they are public domain - these typefaces were designed well over 100 years ago when they were made into tiny lead letterpress pieces and used with a printing press.

 

[Fyri]

I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.

Yikes. I know why their prices have likely gone up too. It's really unfortunate for all humans involved.

The engine is simply a tool. Saying that the AI generator owners having a stake in your copyright because you used their engine is like saying Microsoft has a stake in your royalties because you typed it on Word. Any court would immediately reject such a spurious argument on its face. As always, read the ToS.

Did... did you look at the link I provided? Did I fail to provide that link?

You expect people to be able to afford thousands in commission fees to put in images of dwarves and elves and castles?

No... I just expect people to not carelessly, knowingly steal from artists who worked hard to master their craft and need to make a living somehow. Art is already under attack by the government and education systems since before 2009. Underfunded. Underappreciated. Many underpaid. Yet, everyone loves art and wants it to be immaculate and fulfilling. STEM is more important than STEAM and that bugs me.

AI is fun, but also harmfully under-regulated—for now.

 

[Dankolisic]

Not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions, or know how to navigate the contractual paperwork. Nor does everyone have the ability to make passable artwork for their books. I can't do organic drawing for crap. Faces and bodies elude me. I'm much better at maps and floorpans, so that's what I stick with. But I can't just stick maps and floorplans throughout the book as filler art because it wouldn't make sense to do.

If the material is good enough, the art doesn't matter. I present Strange Girl the comic series as direct evidence of this.

If that is all that it takes to turn you off of some material, it's your loss. I've seen AI artists on dA that spend weeks generating, tweaking, layering, and generating some more art, bashing it into an amazing whole. They use AI as a tool, with each variable like a different color added to the palette. Some of the images use dozens of variables in a single prompt. But that effort and ability to prompt engineer is apparently derailed with a single, "AI sucks," comment. Inb4 you say, "That's not what I said," let me ask you what the implication is, then, that you avoid it? You only avoid something you find distasteful.

Again, not everyone can afford $1,000 commissions. Especially not multiple ones to build the rapport you are suggesting. Even if we assume the commissions are only $100 a piece, there are hundreds of illustrations in a book like the Player's Handbook. That equals tens of thousands that most people do not have the luxury of affording.

I agree. I would love to include a picture on every page in my book, but I simply don't have the money. The cover is finally finished ( I'm posting it here and in a new thread - would love to hear your opinion) and it was fnished by an artist I know. Well, when i make AI porttraits it's more to make my imagination better on how someone views the characters.
Like I said, the book will contain a map that I made in Inkarnate pro mode, the cover made by an artist and a couple of pictures made also by artists.

 

[Finchbearer]

AI is and will always be regurgitated impressions of what we as human beings have already created. It’s like peering into someone’s fever dream. There is no new originality, but a human made thing is fundamentally not the same thing as an AI made thing.

I always reference Tolkien cause the man was so dedicated - sure he was talented, could draw, write, knew a lot of stuff, but how have we gone from something that someone truly made, to this pile of regurgitated garbage? It makes me sad.

I’d rather pick up a book with a home made cover than one that has clearly been made with AI. That CGI look is an instant turn off for me. Some book cover designers charge extortionate amounts. That’s all I’ll say on that. And all I am trying to say is that even if your AI image was ‘free’ for you to take and use as you wish, I do not think it gives you the same copyright law as something that isn’t AI generated.

 

[Dankolisic]

Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it

 

[Fyri]

Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it

Nice! To me, it looks gorgeous!

It also reminds me of something I like about cover art. I always like to wonder about the artist/model/photographer. I love to imagine what it was like and what they were thinking when they posed for a shot or shaded a part of the cover. I enjoy seeing the love and labor and unique touch of each part of a book. If I found out an image were AI generated, it would feel hollow. :/

 

[Fyri]

You posted the link. It's not a solid legal argument and one even I could easily defeat in court. Why? Because while the engine is not considered a human for the purposes of being an "author" recognized by the Copyright office, the person engineering the prompt most assuredly is human. Therefore, it's no different than someone programming a computer using a tool like Basic+. Do the owners of Basic+ have copyright claims to all the programs made with it? Absolutely not. The idea is patently absurd.

Engineering a prompt is easy. Engineering a prompt well takes a lot of patience and talent as anyone who has used ChatGPT or the others can testify to--the machines are idiots and require repeated jostling to get things just so. The truly revolutionary AI artists do this for weeks. Dozens of variables in a prompt, arranged in careful order, are the same thing as the base code of software that tells the CPU engine how to execute the commands. It would be nothing to demonstrate to a court that this is so. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because none of the AI generator owners are interested in attempting that...for a reason. Their lawyers would be ripping their hair out-- "You wanna do what??" would be a common refrain.

What I mean is that the courts don't have this figured out yet. It would not be easy or an instant "laugh in your face" deal. It is a issue that is currently being studied and lots will likely be changing because of it. People have rights that are being messed with. A decision on how to deal with that has not yet been made. It is not an easy debate.

 

[Finchbearer]

Nothing is new under the sun. Every art form descends from something else. AI is just the next iteration. Every idea has been done to death, artistically and otherwise. So the argument that it's just recycling pre-existing stuff is not a strong one. Most people are inspired to be artists based on other people's stuff, and many artists try to emulate other artists' styles until they find their own artistic "voice." AI is no different; it's just not at the stage where it's found its "voice" yet.

Err, yes that’s what I’m saying… we live in a post-post-modern era - what I was saying about AI is that it is regurgitated impressions of human created content - that is not the same thing as human made art and design, it’s an artificial imitation. The clue is the word artificial.

 

[Fyri]

This debate is starting to feel a bit charged and I'm sensing that there is a wall, preventing effective communication. Could be my fault. I am leaving. Good luck, all.

 

[Finchbearer]

This debate is starting to feel a bit charged and I'm sensing that there is a wall, preventing effective communication. Could be my fault. I am leaving. Good luck, all.

Please don’t be deterred from joining in future conversation Fyri - it’s not your fault. Debate is only worth joining in on when it’s intelligent debate, not when things get petty.

 

[Dankolisic]

I will state my opinion on this matter. I agree with actually everything you said, but to be frank, AI is a relatively new thing that has spread widely now. Of course in the future there will be a whole bunch more AI pictures and stuff, and it will be harder and harder to distinguish the real ones from the fake ones. For me, book covers should be hand or computer drawn, and absolutely not those free AI stuff because we should honor the tradition of making covers for books which are essentially the artist's view on the scenery. But, if someone did a very very good cover which took weeks to generate, than it would be okay, especially if it's good.
This topic is similar to electric scooters that dominate the streets today. Are they cars? No. Then should they be allowed on the street? Also no, but there isn't any law yet(in my country at least) where it says it's forbidden. Then, should they be on the sidewalk? Yes, but they present danger for pedestrians. It is a transport device, after all, so by definition it should be on the street. When a couple of accidents happen involving scooters, soon the goverments will start to implement stricter laws, and then the scooters will have to ride in designated area only or smthng like that.

 

[Finchbearer]

Michael - you’re being so narrow minded. It’s like you’re blind to the fact that art and design is an entire industry where people make their livelihoods. You wouldn’t go to the doctor or dentist or lawyer and say, ‘nah, I don’t want to pay that much’ or otherwise not take them seriously, or worse, not pay them at all for their services, no that would be unthinkable. But within the art and design industry it’s all too common, because it’s not taken seriously. You are one such individual who does not see that we are people who have legitimate skills and want to you know, make a living and not be destitute too. Your attitude undermines this.

 

[pmmg]

I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.

Like I said above, once you post its AI, I am not interested. These AI 'artists' can go jump in a lake. Bring me the real thing, or don't waste my time.

 

[pmmg]

Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it

Is this really hand drawn? Or is that meant to be cheeky? I am not sure.

I'd say, wow, that pretty impressive if you drew that, and I like it....

But therein lies the hidden truth. It hits me on two levels. One is, its visually impressive. The other is that its impressive that someone could make that on their own. Without the second, its just 'Yawn'. I know AI can do it.

And the crime is, it may be entirely your own creation, but since you are here talking about using AI, I will forever question. Don't let that be your reputation.

As it is, I believe you made it, and its nice.

 

[Finchbearer]

Oh dear…I think this thread has been througouly thrung.

 

[pmmg]

Well...I dont think its a mystery that I am not on the side of respecting AI.

I can stop posting about it.

 

[Dankolisic]

Is this really hand drawn? Or is that meant to be cheeky? I am not sure.

I'd say, wow, that pretty impressive if you drew that, and I like it....

But therein lies the hidden truth. It hits me on two levels. One is, its visually impressive. The other is that its impressive that someone could make that on their own. Without the second, its just 'Yawn'. I know AI can do it.

And the crime is, it may be entirely your own creation, but since you are here talking about using AI, I will forever question. Don't let that be your reputation.

As it is, I believe you made it, and its nice.

yes, it is drawn by my friend, and artist, called carmraz0m0r on Instagram. She is quite skillfull

 

[Dankolisic]

I cannot see the photo on the first page, just the link...is it my computer or does it happen to all of you? That you cant see the pic anymore?

 

[pmmg]

I can still see the pic.