#when i say my own art theft i mean. stolen From me not By me

[were--ralph]

why exactly do you dislike generative art so much? i know its been misused by some folks, but like, why blame a tool because it gets used by shitty people? Why not just... blame the people who are shitty? I mean this in genuinely good faith, you seem like a pretty nice guy normally, but i guess it just makes me confused how... severe? your reactions are sometimes to it. There's a lot of nuance to conversation about it, and by folks a lot smarter than I (I suggest checking out the Are We Art Yet or "AWAY" group! They've got a lot on their page about the ethical use of Image generation software by individuals, and it really helped explain some things I was confused about). I know on my end, it made me think about why I personally was so reactive about Who was allowed to make art and How/Why. Again, all this in good faith, and I'm not asking you to like, Explain yourself or anything- If you just read this and decide to delete it instead of answering, all good! I just hope maybe you'll look into *why* some people advocate for generative software as strongly as they do, and listen to what they have to say about things -🦜

if Ai genuinely generated its own content I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, however what Ai currently does is scrape other people's art, collect it, and then build something based off of others stolen works without crediting them. It's like. stealing other peoples art, mashing it together, then saying "this is mine i can not only profit of it but i can use it to cut costs in other industries.

this is more evident by people not "making" art but instead using prompts. Its like going to McDonalds and saying "Burger. Big, Juicy, etc, etc" then instead of a worker making the burger it uses an algorithm to build a burger based off of several restaurant's recepies.

example

the left is AI art, the right is one of the artists (Lindong) who it pulled the art style from. it's literally mass producing someone's artstyle by taking their art then using an algorithm to rebuild it in any context. this is even more apparent when you see ai art also tries to recreate artists watermarks and generally blends them together making it unintelligible.

Aside from that theres a lot of other ethical problems with it including generating pretty awful content, including but not limited to cp. It also uses a lot of processing power and apparently water? I haven't caught up on the newer developements i've been depressed about it tbh

Then aside from those, studios are leaning towards Ai generation to replace having to pay people. I've seen professional voice actors complain on twitter that they haven't gotten as much work since ai voice generation started, artists are being cut down and replaced by ai art then having the remaining artists fix any errors in the ai art.

Even beyond those things are the potential for misinformation. Here's an experiment: Which of these two are ai generated?

ready?

These two are both entirely ai generated. I have no idea if they're real people, but in a few months you could ai generate a Biden sex scandal, you could generate politics in whatever situation you want, you can generate popular streamers nude, whatever. and worse yet is ai generated video is already being developed and it doesn't look bad.

I posted on this already but as of right now it only needs one clear frame of a body and it can generate motion. yeah there are issues but it's been like two years since ai development started being taken seriously and we've gotten to this point already. within another two years it'll be close to perfected. There was even tests done with tiktokers and it works. it just fucking works.

There is genuinely not one upside to ai art. at all. it's theft, it's harming peoples lives, its harming the environment, its cutting jobs back and hurting the economy, it's invading peoples privacy, its making pedophilia accessible, and more. it's a plague and there's no vaccine for it. And all because people don't want to take a year to learn anatomy.

[ot3]

ok i think you have really good, reasonable, down-to-earth takes across the board, but your ai perspective is genuinely very confusing to me and i would love your help in understanding. especially wrt your last post. to reiterate: you are saying that people who hate ai art should also hate game consoles and off-season produce, and that hating ai art betrays a hypocritical attitude toward what forms of labour deserve protection and value? if i have this wrong please correct me!

if i have that write, then if i can ask in good faith: how is it that ai art generators can be seen as equivalent to gaming consoles and off-season produce? do you mean from a tech perspective or a labour perspective? i understand neither. gaming consoles are machines - designed and made by humans - designed to run games - games that were made by (typically) huge human labour forces and artists and writers and designers. off-season produce is able to be grown thanks to technology - but still has to be grown and watered and harvested by human labour. midjourney is a computer program, admittedly designed by people, yes, that then goes and autonomously scrapes data off the internet (“data” here being art and photography created by humans) to then autonomously spit own a hashed together image when prompted. without appropriate compensation for the people whose art and photography has been included in such a dataset, i do not see how they might count as similar to the greenhouse farmers or console designers. i am sincerely clueless as to how something like midjourney entails equivalent labour worthy of equivalent protection as items made or grown by hand, or how disliking ai art, and feeling uncertain about what it might mean for human labour the future, is hypocrisy. are you able to clarify any of this?

i'm not saying that people who hate ai should also hate video game consoles or out of season fruit. im saying that people who look at ai and see something that is fundamentally incapable of being interesting or enjoyable because it existing involved stealing the labor of Creatives seem not to care as much about the labor theft that goes into providing them with other luxury goods. i picked out game consoles and out of season fruit as my specific examples here because they're things people could easily choose to live without.

without appropriate compensation for the people whose art and photography has been included in such a dataset, i do not see how they might count as similar to the greenhouse farmers or console designers.

this is the part where we're not quite on the same page, i believe. the point i was trying to make is that the people who are responsible for making your consoles and for making sure your grocery store has produce are not adequately compensated either. they just aren't. i'm not talking about engineers who design consoles or people running greenhouses, i'm talking about miners, factory workers, and agricultural laborers.

the metals for your console were mined by someone whose labor is exploited. the console was assembled by people whose labor was exploited. the fruit from the greenhouse was planted by someone whose labor was exploited, tended to by someone whose labor was exploited, and then harvested by someone whose labor was exploited.

i don't think there's anything wrong with disliking ai art or feeling unsure about where it leaves human artists. i think that's a completely natural way to react to it. i think discussing AI image generation as if the lack of compensation in the labor necessary to develop it makes it uniquely exploitative, thereby putting all AI image generation off limits to everyone forever, means people don't spend enough time thinking about the stolen labor that goes in to making the rest of their life possible.

[detectivehole]

hey man the anti-AI stuff you reblog is rly. Reactionary idk how else to put it. It’s a mixed bag. AI has been used in art for a LONG time, it’s not as new as ppl think it is. It’s used a lot in animation especially. Obviously there is a difference between AI as a tool and AI as a replacement for artists/writers, but nearly every single instance of them attempting this has been catastrophically bad. (Doesnt stop the dumbass studios like Disney and Pixar to keep trying it tho, bc they value short term profit over any actual value) For AI being used in a professional setting, it’s imperative the distinction be made between tool or replacement. Machines, despite how efficient they have become, are managed by humans. Letting them run without a person actually operating it that knows what they’re trying to do is always a bad idea.

However, using AI generated pics for like. Personal use? Let’s say you aren’t a good artist, or as many have pointed out, can’t be an artist due to disability (none of that inspiration porn abt painting w your mouth some ppl can’t do that either.) and you’d like a picture of your Tabletop game character or OC or something, and you do not have the money to spare for a commission from the artist you like. Doesn’t mean you can’t pay for one later on, as a human will take the finer details you want and bring them to life, but if you’re looking for like. A placeholder? And you aren’t planning on selling it or some shit, then ppl shouldnt get on your case. Except every anti-AI bro now hears “AI” and flies into a frothing rage, saying it’s “never ok”. Nobody should care of somebody made a meme using AI or tried to make something just for themselves or friends. It becomes an issue when it’s being marketed as a “replacement” for artists.

Tldr: AI is a useful tool, the tech bros that got a hold of ot do not represent the entire scope of it. If it is used as a tool or personal use, it’s not an issue. It only becomes one when it is used as an explicit replacement for writers/artists.

i agree with the first paragraph, though im a little insulted you'd assume my knowledge and opinions on AI image generation were so shallow and uninformed as to have to explain it to me- but you lost me after that

first off, i wanna make it clear that basically no one thinks you're some sort of amoral monster for having used or even enjoyed what AI image generation and art can give you. most people genuinely don't understand the intricacies of its ethics and effects, and while ignorance like that is annoying, it's something most people who do get it understand and forgive with a sorta... exasperation. most of the time. now, maybe you're not coming from a place of good faith, i can't say, but i choose to think you are

i don't have the chops, time, or particular desire to explain what exactly is wrong with AI art generation (there's a lot in way too many directions), so i'll just give you a link to get you started (it's not a long read, just some basic critiques to jump from) and some admittedly harsh sounding (but well meant) advice that pertains to your particular use of AI:

you dont always get what you want. you're not entitled, for any reason, to the fruits of stolen (and popular AI datasets have been proven to unequivocally be stolen) artistic labor, especially if that theft is impacting the livelihoods of independent artists. (and don't give me "what about other generic media piracy" because that's its own can of worms and you know it. i won't hear it). it's not the end of the world that you have, but it's just not ethical to generate that art knowing it's based off stolen work- if it was all consensually given data it'd be different- and sometimes behaving ethically means you dont get what you want. tough shit. plenty of people can't or won't draw for all sorts of reasons, and none of those reasons suddenly make it ok for them to take other people's art

to be clear, if all the datasets used to train AI were ethically sourced- bought, donated, or taken from free use material- this wouldn't be an issue. i mean there would still totally be issues with casual generative AI, but this particular issue would be moot. the issue with AI art isn't the AI, it's what the AI's being fed. every time you engage with it gets smarter, and better, and more efficient at chewing up its stolen foods and spitting out a knockoff. the issue is what it's being fed and you are putting tokens in the little treat machine at its petting zoo enclosure

you want a placeholder? you got picrew. doll dress up games. hell, pester your friends for doodles. save up. or even just learn to handle not getting it at all- just pick something else

[thotpuppy]

If you’re so vehemently against ai fanart what’s your take on fanmade graphics and edits that use stolen pictures from the internet? These fans didn’t go out with their camera to capture the images themselves, they searched through Pinterest and google and found photos taken by real photographers and, without asking permission, stole these images to edit and create into something else. Yet this practice is widely accepted amongst fandom, but the second ai is involved it’s akin to murder? Even when the fans have clearly uploaded said ai generations into photoshop to edit them first? Seems like a pick-and-choose double standard to me.

Okay first of all, let's address the fact that - going by the language you've used here - you've already decided how I feel about it, so why bother the pretense of "asking"? Dishonesty breeds Discontent. Don't lie to someone's face and expect them to be kind, yeah?

Secondly, almost every single person I know who works with image manipulation uses assets they DO have the rights to outside of specific actor's likenesses. There are millions of photos, graphics, illustrations, paintings, etc. that are open for free personal AND commercial use allllll over the internet and people use them liberally. And, actually, many, MANY of these people DO go out and take their own photographs, so I don't know where your misconception is coming from.

And, the big kicker - they also don't lie about it. They say when something is an edited photo, if it's not obvious.

Stolen images being used in edits is NOT widely accepted and is in fact generally pretty damn frowned upon in most art circles, and I absolutely don't support use of them.

Every single instance of fanart is a rocky road as far as IP infringement goes, but don't put fanartists on the same level as the industry professionals providing celebrity model photos. Unlike in AI and Art Theft, when those photos are used that's bringing attention to the figure in question, not taking it away from an actual creator.

Lastly, where the FUCK do you get off saying ANYONE is comparing AI use to murder? Persecution complex much? I get it, you wanna be a victim so bad, but you're the one stealing from people at YOUR industry level.

AI in general has a metric fuckton of potential to be something genuinely useful to artists of all walks, but the CURRENT industry is too unethically sourced. We need to get control of the market, get stolen works (including, once again, STOLEN LEAKED MEDICAL RECORDS) out of the training data, even if that means starting over from scratch.

Also, we need to get the bullies who think it's okay to do shit like spam a Machine Learning program with a single artist's work to harass them offline, target voice actors who have asked not to have their voices used into harassment campaigns, or lie to celebrities by selling them commercial rights to ML-generated fanart, which right now, they legally CAN'T DO. Because the copyrightable legitimacy of AI/ML works IS currently in debate in courts in the US. So.

Maybe instead of assuming everyone is out to get you, Anon, try not being a douchebag and stealing from fellow fanartists? And if you're gonna steal anyways, at least be honest and don't lie to people trying to convince them it's actually a digital illustration.

We can see the weird, fake blending. We can see the extra fingers, or utensils clipping through plates, or hands disappearing into heads, or shoes that don't end where shoes end. And while I'm not going out of my way to confront anyone about it, I'll just stay here on my own blog, blocking people who post AI, I am not the only person who is angry and disgusted at the lack of integrity and blatant disrespect.

[lilyoffandoms]

If I see one more person post picture sets for their stories that were created by AI and call it “artwork” I’m going to scream. They’re now making these stolen images their pfp’s and headers and pretty much dedicating their blogs to AI theft. And anyone supporting these and reblogging how beautiful and wonderful these images are are just as wrong as the ones posting them. 

I got these along with a few others yesterday. I wasn’t going to answer them on my birthday but I’ll answer them today. I don’t know if these are the same people or different but I’m going to answer them all in one swoop.

I’m going to start with the second ask so there is hopefully less confusion in my other answers.

Ask 2: I hate this argument! I’m assuming this has to do with another few asks I saw recently that say we use AI in our everyday life unless you are off grid or never online.

It seems to me that your argument is to say if we use AI technology in a way that doesn’t harm anyone, we should also use AI technology in a way that harms people? What a position to take!

When I talk about AI around here and when I talk about AI theft, I am specifically talking about the use of AI technologies to generate content that mimics what an actual human person would create. In fandom I would be referring to art and fics.

I am not talking about the real and beneficial ways AI can help us in our lives, I’m talking about the way AI generated content is stealing the works and livelihoods of people!

My use of social media ‘suggested for you content’ or a search engine is not taking a job from someone nor is it stealing someone’s hard work and allowing others to call it their own.

AI can and does have real benefits to us, I’m not denying that. My issue with AI is when it is used as a means of stealing from and hurting real people.

Ask 1: So yes, this also makes me want to scream.

I love supporting creators and really really want to but it’s hard for me to know where to draw the line. Is my support of a writer that uses an AI generated pfp or fic header somehow me supporting AI theft? I don’t support it but I worry it gives the appearance of support. I went back and forth on this for a long time.

I will say that I try to not reblog from anyone that uses AI generated content anywhere on their tumblr. I also block anyone that publicly supports the use of AI theft.

We can’t control what others do so there is no stopping this unless those same people realize how truly damaging this is to actual writers and artists.

Ask 3: Yes, I’m aware of the use of AI generated images in the promotion of Storyloom. The use of any AI generated content beyond that, I can’t speak to because I have never once signed up for Storyloom. I refuse to hand over any of my ideas and writing to a company that seeks to exploit fanfic writers for their own financial gain

To the other two asks deleted from my inbox, try being kinder and I’ll consider answering those.

[gandalfsbignaturals]

your post about fair use is entirely incorrect; fair use is intended to protect those doing reviews, critique, parody, and analysis of other pieces of media. it does not mean “i found this online so i’m allowed to use it however i want”. do some actual research into copyright law before spreading lies to support literal art theft

let me ask you something about art theft.

i have a lovely collage that was made by a friend for me. its a collection of magazine cutouts mostly. none of the images in it were drawn by a human hand; they were created by printing presses reproducing a pattern. there are likely a thousand copies of any of those images available to anyone willing to look for them.

is it stolen art?

now a different question. say i input a command for an ai to generate an image. when i input those commands, it is going to attempt to generate a unique image by collating its data from a large set of other images, and its going to place and color pixels based on its statistical modeling of the concepts contained in my prompt. it is, on a conceptual, essentially a computer-generated collage. none of the pixels were placed by human hands, no, but they were placed based on parameters set by me using statistical models that already exist.

is this stolen art?

another question. i learned to draw by copying art that i saw. mostly comic books and animation. i actually spent about a year where most of the drawing i was doing was done by first tracing over a screenshot of BTAS or a stock image, and then redrawing it without tracing, usually a few times. it allowed me to create models in my head of how human bodies move, look, and act. now, when i draw things, how they look is very much influenced by the art that i studied and trained myself on. in fact, sometimes i still reference images when im drawing, and in fact i often use screenshots of shows i like. the other day i did a whole series of thumbnails that were all based on magic the gathering card art.

am i stealing art?

you may think my questions pedantic, but i think theyre important. these ai image generators arent doing anything a human couldnt do. they just do it faster, because they are computers, and computers are made to do things that humans can do but faster.

so why is it considered art theft? is it art theft because they arent fully original images, but cobbled together based on a database? is it art theft because they are referencing other images? is it art theft because the people using them didnt have to devote hours holding a pencil to make them?

i do not think that ai generated images are any more "art theft" than any other sort of image. obviously they can be used for art theft--copying someones work and changing a few things around is kind of a dick move. but thats not inherent to ai art. just as easily as i could copy an artists style with an ai, i could trace over a piece of art or a photograph and try to pass it off as my original work. in fact, because of my particular skillset, it would probably be easier for me to do that than to try and wrestle with an ai prompt for hours trying to produce a decent looking image.

next time you accuse someone of art theft, ask yourself something. are they actually trying to pass off another artists work as their own? are they making money off of the image? are they trying to copyright the image? are they actually doing anything that a very determined human couldnt accomplish on their own?

[pizzaronipasta]

Not for nothing, but the reason people are getting on your case about the AI art thing is because you were literally the one who started it. Someone made a post about how anyone can make art, and you responded by insulting that person, calling them an asshole, and accusing them of ableism. I've checked their blog, and you continued to argue with and insult this person until they finally blocked you, which I don't blame them for. If people aren't listening to you, or are upset with you, it's because you attacked someone else first. You're perfectly capable of discussing your thoughts without being a dick– someone sent you an ask in which they were far nicer to you than you've been to anyone else, and you treated them in kind. Ironically, this was after thanking them for their politeness and good faith, something you have not been affording most other people.

I'll be frank– I do not understand how AI works, nor do I think I ever will. That is not my area of expertise. But I have a wealth of experience in being human and wanting to create things that are beyond my abilities. You seem to think that this is something that only disabled folks experience, but wanting to make something and being physically unable to do so is, in fact, something every artist experiences. It is the feeling that drives people to create art in the first place. Art is a lot of things, but at its center, it is having a thought inside of you that you would like to make physical. This is fundamentally impossible. I will never draw anything as good as the image in my head, I will never sing anything as good as the song I imagine, and I will never take a picture that matches my experience of the world. Those imperfections are what makes our art ours, and when we say anyone can make art, that is exactly what we mean. A child making a crayon drawing is an artist. A tone-deaf person singing a made-up, off-key song is an artist. Art is not about the quality of the finished product, it is about the process of creating.

That having been said, from what I can tell, you genuinely view AI as a tool. You're not entirely wrong. AI is something built by humans, and if someone builds their own neural network, trains it themselves, and provides it with images from consenting sources, there is nothing wrong with using it. Nor would there be anything wrong with using an AI someone else developed provided, again, that the images it's trained on come from consenting sources. You said at one point that when it comes to art theft, "the ones making AI are the culprits here, not the AI itself, nor its users." That is, to put it mildly, bullshit. If someone robs an art museum, cuts up the Mona Lisa, and hands me the pieces and some glue, I agree that the glue is not responsible if I then decide to reassemble it into something new. But the robbers and I would definitely be at fault. By choosing to use an AI that has been trained on stolen art, you are explicitly saying that you, the user, are okay with the theft.

Which you may well be, considering you keep conflating art theft with the legal term intellectual property. No one who is upset about art theft gives a shit about whether or not it's legal to do. Plenty of things are legal and awful. What people are upset about is when people take something that someone else has worked very hard on and use it without permission. This is not exclusive to AI– people have been angry for years about art tracing, after all, or simply taking someone else's picture and claiming it is your own, which is what the term art theft used to be most often used to mean. People are not upset about AI using stolen art because they think it is illegal; they are upset because the people who made that art did not consent to it being used. Speaking personally, I would love to see someone train an AI using my art. It would be very interesting to me to see what it could make. But at the very least, I would want them to ask for my permission first. Consent is, as always, key.

TLDR, people are being assholes to you because you were an asshole to someone else first, and AI may be a tool but the way that tool is currently being used is shitty and that's why people are upset. Maybe stop insisting other people are ableist for not liking the current usage of AI and accept that what they're upset about is the non-consensual use of other people's art.

You're right, I was the one who fired the first shot. I've been aware of this for a while now, and I regret my initial hostility. I honestly don't blame anyone for being combative in their responses. That's why I go out of my way to thank people for especially tactful ones; they don't necessarily owe it to me. On the other hand, however, I can't meaningfully respond to those which haven't meaningfully responded to me. I can't help but be disappointed by how few people have made an effort to actually convince me of anything.

You are also right about the nature of art. However, I speak from experience in saying that "wanting to make something and being physically unable to do so" often means something different for disabled people. Due to my ADHD, I struggle with executive dysfunction. I have a severe disadvantage at bringing myself to work on my art in the first place. It's not a matter of imperfections, it's a matter of even getting started. It's not about the quality of the finished product, it's about creating a finished product at all. I am simply not able to make art as easily as most people. Neither are countless other disabled people. This is why I took issue with the original post that said everyone can make art.

I don't like to use the term "art theft" loosely. Its primary meaning refers to literal theft, be it of a physical artwork, or of the tangible medium of a digital one. Such a specific term for it exists because art is important enough to us that we consider crimes against art to be worth identifying. In the era of digital art, though, it has taken on a secondary meaning, which roughly refers to plagiarism. Between our cultural emphasis on individualism in authorship, and the common tendency to mistake intellectual property for an ethical framework (which was my whole point in bringing up IP in prior posts), this newer definition actually reaches far further than just plagiarism, and even encompasses some things which are perfectly ethical in actuality.

Consider the fact that inspiration is inseparable from creativity. Even the most original works of all time are shaped by the artist's lived experiences—after all, our lived experiences are what literally rewire our brains and inform our every decision. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks creative inspiration is immoral. On the other hand, there is an overwhelming consensus that plagiarism is immoral. Both of these, at their core, consist of producing something by drawing upon existing works. The only inherent difference between them is how transformative the process is. AI training is one of the most transformative processes there are—data is transformed into behavior, and each pixel in the resulting outputs is determined by using the sum total of everything that was learned in the process, not merely copied from a random work. AI is nothing like gluing together cut-up pieces of the stolen Mona Lisa. In reality, it's no different from how we humans take inspiration from existing things to create something new. That's not personification—generative AI is an emulation of the structures and functions underlying brains and nerves, albeit an imperfect and simplistic one. To say that AI can't be trained on publicly accessible art without express permission is to say that people can't be inspired by others' work without express permission. Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking measures to prevent or deter AI companies from using your art. If that's what you want, be it personal preference or because of a problem with the companies and their practices, then go for it! There's plenty to take issue with in regards to the companies themselves, which is what I was talking about when I called them "the culprits."

Thank you for bringing up that first topic; I appreciate the opportunity that gave me to reflect on it. And of course, thank you for addressing things in a constructive manner.

[talenlee]

MTG: Piracy and Proxies

Should you ‘steal’ Magic: The Gathering?

How do you ‘steal’ Magic: The Gathering?

I don’t mean cards, mind you. Magic: The Gathering cards aren’t things you should steal, because those cards are physical objects, and one of the best things about them is that they have humans who own them as property, or are responsible for them to a business. That’s a good thing because it means that there’s no central authority determining who does or does not own the cards, and therefore, the act of theft is a simple matter of checking ownership. But Magic: The Gathering cards aren’t Magic: The Gathering.

They’re just game objects. They are material objects that aid in the memory of the experience of playing the game Magic: The Gathering. They are pretty important for it — the game is extremely complicated and involves remembering a lot of complicated systems all moving in relationship to one another. It’s why the cards — typically — have text on them to remind you what they do and how they alter the game states.

We had a recent fuss about the theft of Magic: The Gathering cards. There was a heist at GenCon, of unopened product that represented about $300,000 in cash. That was a lot of stolen Magic: The Gathering cards, and represented the kind of sums that people get really scared about. As a heist fan, I feel bad including this kind of theft in ‘heist,’ but you know what I mean, it’s a lowering of the bar.

What about earlier this year when Wizards of the Coast sent the fucking Pinkertons to intimidate a person who made a video leaking card information ahead of time. Was that because that person was stealing Magic: The Gathering? I mean, literally no – after all, recovering the product didn’t un-spoil the cards. That was about sharing information about cards that weren’t yet available for purchase. This information was something that Wizards wanted to release on their schedule through their avenues —

And I will say, whether or not that’s a valid or acceptable complaint? That’s its own conversation. Not really my interest, honestly, because it seems pretty settled to me that releasing card info ahead of time in a way that hurts content creators does indeed, yes hurt content creators, but then again, those content creators’ job is functionally marketer,

— and then that was taken away from them. But was that theft? It didn’t involve taking something away from Wizards. It didn’t deprive anyone of the Magic: The Gathering game.

I haven’t played Magic: The Gathering using standardised pieces and a second player since 2019. I’ve been playing it non-stop every day, because I log onto a subreddit and make up or share a custom card. These cards use art I don’t have the rights to use, and I’m not putting them in sleeves and playing them with other players. But I am, in a way, playing with Magic: The Gathering.

I am playing with the game pieces in my mind and imagining what I do and what games might look like, or how they might work in a different positions. I am literally playing with these pieces, I am running scenarios with the games, and the code of the game, but in a way that doesn’t even need to involve the mechanisms of the game as played.

Custom cards are made using a rules language, a rules structure, that we didn’t make, and is technically in a lot of cases, under patent in bits to the Wizards legal team. Patents that, I understand, are really not going to do anything when the time comes to test them (which will be never (because they know they won’t do anything)). But the thing is, Magic: The Gathering isn’t mine to make game expansions for, and Wizards of the Coast never gave me explicit permission to do so. They’re not going to stop me, or anyone else doing it, because they can’t. It’s a well-established ordinance that you can’t copyright game methods. Rules aren’t, themselves, inherently copyrightable, though the individual expression of a ruleset is. The comprehensive rulebook is a copyrighted document but if you rewrote every rule and changed all the terms and used your own words, you’d have the copyright on that.

I can’t imagine why you’d do that, that seems very silly, but it is, nonetheless, a thing you could do.

Am I stealing Magic: The Gathering?

And if so, from whom?

Back when Magic: The Gathering was a lot newer than it is today, around the time of Mirrodin-era standard, I entertained the idea of using money from my first job to actually make and play competitive Magic. I tried out FNM and I even went to an Extended PTQ, playing the best deck I could put together with the tools I had. I didn’t do very well at all, but a friend of mine wound up going to the Pro Tour which was nice for him.

(I understand.)

During this time, I had a bunch of decks of the existing standard metagame, made up and sleeved up. I had a few Vintage decks too, all sleeved up for play too. They were all constructed for me to playtest with, so that when I was playing the standard deck I had, I had some reps in with the opponent’s cards.

I had a copy of Tooth and Nail, and I was playing it against Ravager Affinity. This was to say that I was playing a very rough, very hard deck to play, against an amazingly powerful deck that was less hard to play.

Most of these decks, aside from the one I played in tournaments, were 100% proxied. They were made using existing cards I owned and the new card name scribbled on them. This was a way to use cards that never saw use for something. I was, however, playing Magic Decks that I did not, officially, or really, own. Just like how if you play Magic: The Gathering Online you are not playing with Magic cards you own, but licensing for a temporary time.

The barrier to entry of cost is a thing that Magic: The Gathering has. But it only has it if you let it have it. If you play with proxied cards, you are defraying that cost, in exchange for excluding yourself from experiences where those proxied cards aren’t allowed. But you don’t have to disallow them. You can just ask people. Most of the time, most games of Magic aren’t about a tournament enforcer. They’re with people.

What I’m saying is print your own proxies and make them pretty and if anyone has a problem with it, ask them if what they really mean is ‘I think of price as a real barrier to entry to keep me from having to deal with the decks I don’t want to play against,’ because the solution to that is just asking people to play something they like to play against more. And hell, that’s made easier if decks are cheaper to proxy.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[noforkingclue]

By Any Means Chapter 8 (Malcolm Bright x reader)

Prodigal Son tag list: @queenoffandom08, @imwithyoutiltheendofthelinebucky

Everything tag list: @greenrevolutionary, @byebyebreezywrites, @spngingerbread21, @layazul, @lov3vivian, @simonsbluee

The address Richard had given you led you to a bookshop. You had tried one more time to persuade him to join you but he was adamant not to. He had gotten out and wanted to remain that way. You were still on the inside and longed to get free. Still, you had this to complete first and then you could think about your life afterwards.

The bookshop was small and cosy. Customers milled about and you had to push passed several in order to get to the counter. The man behind it had greying hair and looked at you over the rim of his glasses. Sharp blue eyes narrowed at your arrival and he said,

“Hello. Is there anything I can help you with? A book you’re looking for?”

His voice held the well measured politeness of someone who was way too used to being in customer services. Yes, you could see why Joseph would fall for someone like him.

“I believe that there’s someone we have in common.” You whispered

“I’m afraid you’re going to have to speak up. My hearing isn’t quite what it used to be.”

“Joseph Murphy,” you said, “I’m one of his students.”

At Joseph’s name the man’s expression changed. Surprised quickly morphed into sorrow before changing to suspicion.

“His student or his student?” he asked

“Take a guess.”

“Alright,” he looked around, “Come round the back.”

The backroom was like every stereotypical bookshop storeroom. Books while piled high and some were quickly removed from a spare chair. When you were comfortably sat down with a cup of tea, the man said,

“So, I guess you know who I am. Introductions aren’t needed?”

“No they aren’t, George.”

George sighed and ran a hand through his hair. He looked around the storeroom with a sad smile.

“Joe always told me that I had too many books,” he said, “Used to call me Bernard. From Black Books. I guess you’re too young to have seen that.”

“I know the show,” you said with a small glare, “I’m not that young.”

“He used to talk about you, y/n.”

“Did he? He-“

“Never talked about me. No, I’m not surprised. Said you were too sharp for your own good.”

“Thanks.”

“But I’m guessing you’re not here to talk about Joe.”

“It’s linked to him but not about him.”

“Oh?”

“I’ve been accused of murder.”

“Murder,” George stuck his head out of the door to make sure no one was listening on (and to see if there were any customers), “Thought you lot only dealt with art thefts.”

“We do. Which was how I was dragged into this.”

“Hmm.”

“A man was killed in a position that mimicked classical art,” you said, “The NYPD believed that I might have something to do with it.”

“And did you?”

“Of course not!”

“And why might they believe you were involved?”

“They’re still suspicious,” you said bitterly, “Also, a painting was stolen.”

“Stolen?”

“Dick and I have gone through Joseph’s old contacts and couldn’t find anything. He then gave me your name-“

“And you think that I might be able to help.”

“Can you?”

“Depends,” George scratched his chin, “What’s the guy’s name?”

“Nicholas Smith.”

George paused for a second. Then he took a sip of tea, looked back out the door, before saying,

“Ah. Him.”

“You know him?”

“Joe had a… select group of clients.”

“What do you mean?”

“Who do you give the original paintings to when you fake them?”

“I don’t see how that’s relevant.” You muttered

“Well,” George gave you a knowing look, “With these clients Joe always gave them the original. Nicholas Smith,” he spat the name, “Was someone he stole from.”

“So he had a fake.”

“Is that important?”

“A painting was practically slashed from its frame,” you said, “Explains why.”

“Well this isn’t good.”

“You only just think that now?”

“No,” George snapped, “But it seems that someone is finally doing what they always wanted to do.”

“Destroy the fake works.”

“Correct.”

“Thank you George,” you stood up, “For everything. It’s been… it’s been nice.”

“Yeah, always good to talk about the old times.”

You gave George a small smile before leaving the store. You took a deep breath when you were outside as you rapidly blinked away the tears. Fuck, that took more out of you than you thought. Now you knew exactly what you needed to do.

[davidmariottecomics]

The (Cash) Value of Art

Hello again, 

If you've been engaged in the comic and art spaces recently, you've probably noticed a number of troubling trends. While cost of living is rising, folks are looking up numbers showing rates have stagnated for extended periods (and given inflation, technically fallen). Folks are talking about being offered too little by places with big budgets. Folks are talking about massive delays or straight-up non-payments from comics publishers. And between NFTs featuring stolen artwork--a thing that has proven time and time again to be a scam of occasional worth, but no value; the seemingly ever-worsening state of actually crediting/acknowledging artists, much less listening when they say things like "do not repost or steal my art"; and AI tools that don't actually level any sort of artistic playing field and just steal and repurpose existing art (and user data and, sometimes, medical records?!) for the benefit of *checks notes* people who don't want to pay for art, it's a ROUGH time out there. 

DISCLAIMER: While I'm happy to harp on the negatives of art theft, as noted in that last point, I encourage doing your own due diligence on the first few. These are conversations that are happening and that, in conjunction with the rampant art theft and general devaluation of art that I'll be talking about today, I wanted to make sure got mentioned. However, as a lot of these conversations are coming from social media, I do think it's worth doing independent verification of any claims. I'm not here to say whether or not companies are paying people--I don't know. I'm saying that it's being discussed. 

What I am going to talk about more at length today is, generally, how you can value your art and take that valuation with you in all avenues you may pursue. These tips might not work for everyone, but maybe they'll work for you. 

The Value of Art

Chances are, if you're reading this, you already know what I'm about to say, but maybe you need a reminder. Art is human expression. It is the distillation of an idea by an artist in whatever medium they may choose. It may be inspiring or emotional or wrought with pain or just a funny little picture of a funny little guy because you were bored. It may have meaning and purpose and depth, or be vapid and convenient and random, and both can be enjoyable. Art is, I'd reckon, one of the base ways we relate to each other. It can be communication and entertainment, and one can beget the other. I am someone immersed in art all the time--from my work to the things in my home to what I consume in the public sphere. Art pays my bills (speaking of, my cats had to go to the vet--routine check-ups and vaccines and stuff, but not great timing, so if you wanna support me, check out the shop and buy my art). It has helped me when I've been down. It's brought me great joy. Art is valuable. Your art is valuable. Even if it is for no one except yourself, your art is worth your time and energy in that you created something you set out to create. 

So it really sucks when people devalue your art externally. It sucks that while social media has allowed for artists to find outreach and build audiences and community webs like never before, it's also an ever-churning engine looking for something to self-promote. An artist's post on Twitter is equally free promotion for Twitter as a place to find the artist and their work as it is the artist themselves. Sometimes, the equation's even more unbalanced as the proliferation of free art being shared by artists has led to entitled folks believing they have a right to all art--from taking and reposting art without credit (or, equally infuriatingly, with "credit to the artist") to piracy to the new wave of feeding other people's hard work without their knowledge or against their will into programs that allow other people to use and make a profit from their work. This is a particularly important point--the art's value isn't lost. AI generators, NFTs, the aforementioned social media--they're making money off of that work, instead of it going to the creators of the work. And people often submit that willingly because--at best, they don't know better, and at worst, they seek to actively cause harm to the artists. 

When there's so much happening, it can be disheartening. It feels like attacks against the worth of your work on all sides. And as many artists point out, they'd love to be able to make art for free (and, often do, though when they do, the fact it was free is overlooked and underappreciated). But they have bills and wants and needs and as long as we're using money to pay for things, a need for money for their work (as one last aside, pretty sure you could sub artists for sex workers and art for sex work and have the statement be equally true--notable because many forms of sex work overlap with art and also, y'know, people who have their work and humanity devalued gotta stick together, y'know). 

So, when it seems like things are against you, how do you value your own art?  

A Fair Price

What is a fair price is for your art? How can you set a price that you feel is justified? Who decides that price? Big questions, I know, but hopefully simple answers. 

The what and the how go hand-in-hand. I don't have it in front of me, but I've seen a pretty good calculation for setting rates in the past that is something like: 

Minimum Wage x Estimated Hours to Complete a Piece [taking into account style, complexity, and layers--a sketch takes less time than a fully colored multi-panel comic page--as an extra note here, you may want to ramp your "hours" up as a valuation of expertise, if you are quicker because you've learned and practiced to become able to work more quickly, take into account the hours spent getting there too] + Cost of Materials divided by Number of Projects they can be used for [how long does your pencil last? Your iPad? Monthly costs of electricity and/or internet? Also including shipping costs if those apply] + X Project Specific Materials [if you're paying for a special font or canvas or reference material] + the biggest variable, Minimum Wage x Estimated Hours for Promotion [that is to say, if you're expected to self-promote a project, how much you expect that sort of marketing work will cost/would be traded off for other work]. 

You might go up or down with whatever number you come up with, but now you have a base and one that is justified through a lot of your time and consideration. And that's the biggest thing--despite art appraisers and the budgets of commissioners [or a private or business level]--only you can really set the standard for how much you'd like to be paid. 

How to Go About Talking $$$ The short and sweet is, if you have a number in mind to start, you're ready for the conversation. Not all art budgets are going to match your number. Sometimes, occasionally, you'll be offered even higher (and unless the project is evil--probably worth saying, some art is inherently vile and bad and evil--you should take it). Sometimes you'll be lowballed and it'll be up to you whether or not you take it. A lot of the time, you'll be given a price that someone somewhere, not the person talking to you in the moment, said is the amount that can be paid. 

To that end, remember to be polite to the person attempting to hire you. Keep your number in mind and see if they have any flexibility if it isn't being met. I recommend talking budget early--either with deadline or after confirming the deadline will work. And ask your questions early too. Places should be able to answer basic questions about the money: how it can be paid, if there is an average/expected time that it is paid in (sometimes called a Net period), questions about rights, other usage, etc. 

From there, go with your gut. Ask a peer if something seems off. But if you know how much you value your art, that's the way to start the conversation. 

Speaking of the value of art and how artists need $$$ to pay for things... my friends Elizabeth and Danny had their catalytic converter stolen right off their car and those are expensive, so if you like good comics and stuff, maybe go and help them out! And Becca's shop is slightly updated and open through 12/26, speaking of someone who has recently been giving a lot of free art to social media and deserves to be paid for their work. Also, if you're an adult and a Genshin Impact fan, they're currently doing one of those "strip" trends of a sort... Also, lots of really good Makimas recently for you CSM fans. 

Next week: THE LAST BLOG OF THE YEAR! It's going to be a goodbye of sorts as I say a bit about my time with Transformers as we part ways for now, as well as saying goodbye to the first year of this blog. Hope to see you there! 

Things I've been enjoying this week: Heading out shortly to hang out and watch Xmas movies with the aforementioned Elizabeth, Danny, and Becca! Candy canes. Honkai Impact (Video game). Chainsaw Man (Anime & Manga). Knowing Star Saber's on his way and should be here Monday (and some other TFs are going to be coming home soon too). Finding something as a present that you didn't think you'd see before Xmas and is now under the tree. Advent calendars. Lego Masters (TV show). The Simpsons (TV show). Tiansheng being such a good boy for the vet (Nadja was not and so we have to go back Wednesday with her dosed with a calming drug beforehand). Hades II!!!!!!!! Getting through a chunk of my to-do list. This past week wasn't quite as "Winter Slumpy" as I was expecting, but I made good progress. 

Also, I took a pull on Genshin and got the artist formerly known as Scaramouche by accident and Becca still needs to pull him because they're actually much more interested, so one more plug, please buy some stuff from Becca so they can get this guy.  

New Releases this week (12/7/2022): Sonic the Hedgehog #55 (Editor) Transformers: Best of Windblade (Editor--our penultimate TF book) Godzilla Monsters & Protectors: All Hail the King #3 (Editor! My first Godzilla book!)

New releases next week (12/14/2022): Transformers: Shattered Glass II #5 (Supervising Editor--Our last TF book. More next week). 

Pic of the Week: Last week I drew a silly little comic about how doing self-promotion, including for this blog, kinda backfired as it seemed like I was being throttled in who my posts were reaching, as well as how to get past it (hint: he's fast and blue and I think I literally already posted this here, but whoops?). 

[prairieprayer]

I’m not defending the use of AI in creative writing (it kinda sucks) but I will say this seems a bit like a misunderstanding of what a natural language model is and does. It’s not the same thing as a visual art creator that scraps art and just mushes it together in different ways. Where you can get AI art that looks just like a copy of an actual artists art, because it’s really just variations of art clipped together, natural language text generators do not work that way.

A natural language model does have to be fed large swaths of data, but a natural language model like chatGTP does not simply cut and paste things together. It is learning how to predict the most likely and most correct response to your input; so, if you put “Good morning” it knows the most likely to be correct reply is going to be something like “Good morning! How are you today? I am a natural language model and I am here to assist you. Let me know if you have any questions!”

If you ask it instead to generate a paragraph of text to what comes next in a story- it’ll do it, but you’re asking it to “be creative” and what it comes up with is not going to be other people’s fanfiction cut and pasted. It’s going to be what it thinks it’s most likely (most “natural”) to be the correct next turn of events- it is working out what the pattern is, what has been the most likely thing to happen in that scenario in the last. For example if you said “my friend opened a box and screamed when she saw what was in it! What comes next in this story?” It might say “She saw something that scared her inside of the box.”

… also never take what a natural language model says for full truth. They don’t know everything and will “deceive” you by filling in gaps- basically making shit up if they don’t know it, and being confident about it. Bing is hooking a modified chatGTP up to their search engine, so it’s accuracy will be improved, but it’s still just a more articulate Siri from your first IPhone. This is why it says text generated responses for homework are obvious :p the bot is a liar but doesn’t know it’s lying

That said.. even if it isn’t cut and pasted from stolen written work and is just a glorified text predictor, it’s lazy as shit and completely kills creativity to use text generation for fanfiction. The bot does not know the context of your story, it does not know the context of the IP it’s coming from, and it is going to be shit as spacial awareness and story consistency. By all means is it a great soundboard for bouncing ideas off of when you need ideas but no one is awake, but chatGTP is a dumb robot with severe creative restrains (content filters) who, half the time, sounds like a lobotomized 1990s PSA.

Unless you are using it as an accessibility tool for helping you be creative, don’t be lazy… natural language bots are useful tools, not end-all-be-all generators for making quick “give me likes!!” content that shits on your fellow creatives. Using chatGTP or any NLP bot like characterAI as stand ins for your own work is so passionless……

Tl;dr: you have nothing to fear from a natural language processing chatbot (can’t fully speak for NovelAI or TavernAI) when it comes to fanfic or literature theft, because even if they were scraping fanfiction, they are learning how to speak like/pretend to be a human, NOT copying your art and tweaking it slightly. They are a different AI than visual AIs, but both use a neural network.

kind of wanna reinforce this here. because i’ve seen ai writing become so popular on tik tok.

ai writing is not okay.

it’s literally theft. just like how ai art steals, ai writing steals. it’s using authors’ very real work to generate whatever you type in. and this also needs to be said as well.

writing is a form of art. fanfiction is a form of literature.

seeing this all over my fyp is REALLY discouraging. fanfic itself is already a labor of love and we love it when you interact. but please do not use ai writing for your fanfic needs when this writing literally steals from fanfic authors.

genuinely don’t know if this post will go around because my interactions outside of hcs are shit, but i hope it does.

[janewaykove]

Hey! Please look into how AI datasets are formed. These programs are only able to function due to large scale intellectual property theft that would be illegal for any other purpose. AI is an amazing concept and we can do lots of great things with it, even (theoretically) with generative AI if someone were to build a dataset ethically with knowledge, consent and compensation of the authors whose works are being used (there aren't any currently, thus theoretically. the reason there aren't any is if you did it, it would no longer be profitable) but please be aware that the currently available generative AIs (not just text btw, visual ones too) exploit writers/artists, especially smaller ones who don't have the means to fight back. The only way we can disincentivize this theft is by ending demand for the product

If you see parts of anything in the AI stories I post(ed) that you think are from someone's story, please do let me know. But as far as I can see, it's just common phrases and generalized things. Aside from the names I put in and the dozen specific prompts (which often included dialogue), basically all that's left is to put it into place and fill in stuff like everyday phrases (ie "she walked down the hallway and turned the corner"). And of course the sex bits that I prompt. If there's suddenly a paragraph in there from Moby Dick, that'd be a bit questionable!

Now if I posted something from some original story/character/world, I could totally see the issue with it being ripped off. But I wouldn't post that. As it is, I have to be specific about a lot of it. I mean, it will know Captain Janeway should be on Voyager. But if I make the character be Kove, it tends not to know who the hell she is and makes her a tall, skinny blonde who works as a waitress. There's only so many ways to write a sex scene so unless someone owns "she reached between her legs and touched herself," or whatever, it's probably not stealing that from anyone, lol!

As for photos, I've seen how those work and don't care for them. I see a lot of images that look just like original images so I know the generator is just taking original images and basing "art" off those. And not even well, I might add (oh those extra fingers it likes to add).

Hope I'm not sounding like an ignorant jerk here. I know a lot of people don't like AI, so I note when I've used a generator. But, as I've said a while back, my brain isn't what it was 25 years ago and some times I just wanna read a weird story with a weird ship. When they come out kinda good (even though they still need tweaking), I share them. What I've seen is general/common stuff in between my specific prompts, otherwise I wouldn't mess with it.

Also, if fanfiction is technically illegal anyway, the only people to be compensated for AI programs using their work would have to be people who write original stories. Those would be easiest to find in AI generators so that'd be a plus, at least. If AI generates stuff based on fandoms, it's harder to figure which is stolen. But if you've got AI talking about Zippooloo Square on the planet Deengu with its 3 purple-pink moons, that'd be an obvious steal. If it's talking about Voyager being in space, that's more general and common knowledge (unless it mentions a quirky addition we know someone else made up just for their own version) that most of the fandom has wrote somewhere or other.

Edit: I'm not saying AI doesn't steal, just to be clear. I read about it stealing works, or people using it to continue an original story. I certainly don't approve of that! But the little stories I do are just AI filler stuff in the specific prompts I give it. So just "he said/she said" and "walked down the street and went into the cafe" stuff. Not chunks of storyline from already written stories.

[madmilez]

Unfinished business

There is something kind of unsettling about an unfinished project. Especially a painting. With painting, sometimes the inspiration Fades or changes before the piece is complete. So you're left with an unfinished reminder of your attention deficit disorder. I find this to be the case far too often with me. One piece in particular that went unfinished was one that stands out in my mind because it went unfinished not because of my attention deficit disorder but because of the police. The canvas was a stolen utility trailer which had been nestled in comfortably and hidden away Within the Woods just on the other side of my property line. Due to the rather ignorant actions of one particular individual who shares my bloodline, the law enforcement became aware of the location of the trailer. By the time they found it I was in the middle of painting on the side of it. Before I could finish they came into the dark depths of the Land of the Lost causes and removed my fort on Wheels unfinished work and all. Dooming my art to forever be in progress. This seems kind of unworthy of mentioning until you get a clear picture of the picture. The idea was to paint a version of the life cycle. An old man Fades and his energy is transferred into a child and life continues on. Makes sense right? Not if it's unfinished. It does not quite have the desired effect. And is actually a bit strange. So, freshly confiscated and full of my art supplies it sat in the police station parking lot for 2 months. Coincidentally, this is two blocks from my house so I got to see my unfinished monstrosity often. A constant reminder that I don't paint fast enough, but also that a little logical thinking goes a long way. I'll explain. This is because of the wonderful fact that I had not been arrested and indicted for Grand Theft. This I owed to my Forward Thinking and decision to position the trailer just off my property and so the door opened and fell just shy of the line. This may seem insignificant to you, but that's only because you're a s***** Criminal. Just kidding, I'm sure you're a straight up villain. Anyway, the trailer was legally not in my possession and therefore they could not charge me unless I confessed and let's just say, they didn't even bother trying. I'm actually still waiting for them to figure out my legal name. They have five that could be my name but they're not sure which one it is if it's any of them at all. So, back to the purpose of this spew of information. The art. In its unfinished glory and now returned to its owner who, as it turned out, owned a shop across the street from my house which is where it sits to this day. On the side facing the house, an old man sits holding an hourglass. Behind him lingers death himself hand on the old man's shoulder, Scythe hanging overhead. On the opposite end, a lone fetus floating in the nothingness that surrounds it. Knowing what the image was meant to be makes it difficult to imagine what other people think when they see it. An old man, death and a fetus. The three amigos. I just wish I could have at least portrayed the three sitting around a table playing poker and smoking cigars with Jesus. At any rate, I suppose the fact no one has made any effort to cover it must mean the art is not all that bad even if it makes no sense and is kind of creepy.

This story is dedicated to the original paint Slinger Mr Bob Ross rip

[enigmakiwi]

As someone who plays and loves palworld, I wanna say some things. One of my special interests (autism) is pokemon, and I absolutely loved pokemon scarlet/violet despite its technical flaws, if that helps demonstrate where I'm coming from.

Like the previous reblog says, the model thing has been debunked, and the arsox accusation isn't substantial. The mega delphox is a bit more concerning, but it's still not necessarily a ripoff. It's extremely possible for people to come up with similar ideas independently; it happens all the time, especially with things like pokemon/fakemon/similar monsters.

But anyways, I'm not about to defend pocketpair as a company. I just think it's important to stick to criticisms that can be... proven. I'd call them lacking in creativity for sure, though. I'd even call them hacks, honestly. Case in point, the hollow knight ripoff op mentioned. But they did manage to create one game that's... fun. At least, it's fun to me.

The reason I got it is because it seemed like an open world pokemon game in which the pokemon are treated like actual animals and creatures instead of these mythical beings that you can't hurt without using another pokemon, that can't die, that don't really feel as alive. And that's still how I'd describe it. They're animals. They're mortal. You can interact with them, and they help you. And that's something I appreciate, because it makes your relationships with them more meaningful than the third undying and infinitely powerful pidgey you've caught that sits in the box forever, or the Sceptile you only get to see when you're in a fight. At least, to me. And that says something, because I get damn attached to my pokemon.

I'm terrible at survival games. I don't like them, either. But I like this one. The one thing I feel comfortable commending them on is the combination of the mechanics they were inspired by. Life in the game doesn't feel tedious like it does in other survival games for me. It's full of creatures that, while not at all revolutionary in design, are still fun to see and interact with, and it doesn't make me do chores. I truly believe the game has some merits. The game is not finished. There's certain elements that need to be fleshed out. But even in its current state, I still find it fun. However, for the same reasons I find it fun, a lot of people will probably find it boring or bad. A lot of people were disappointed, and not all of them because of the unfinished aspects of it. That doesn't mean the game is objectively bad, that means the game isn't fun for you, nor for players like you.

But yes, the pals are unoriginal. You can often spot exactly which pokemon a pal is ripping off for the ones that are blatant ripoffs. And I find the observation in the previous reblog rather astute: people are more upset over ripped off visuals than ripped off mechanics. I think we are very rightly very concerned over visual art theft right now, with art thieves running basically unrestrained and AI trained on stolen works being extremely popular and advanced. These are things we SHOULD be concerned about. And it's something to rightly be upset with pocketpair over (the hollow knight ripoff. Seriously. Oh my god. I think everyone should be pissed off about that.).

But palworld on its own is not a serious offender. As I said, claims of stolen fakemon (at least the ones I've seen) aren't substantial, and the ripping off of pokemon is not the same as, and I'm sorry to bring it up again, the ripping off of hollow knight. I understand the argument that it incentivizes the company to rip off other smaller creators and/or indicates they're already willing to do that (...hollow knight), but palworld itself is not the offender, and if it were made by someone else, someone who isn't already following that pattern, I'd argue it isn't inherently indicative of anything specifically because of the enormity of pokemon/game freak/nintendo. Some people went a bit too far with the idea, but yeah, ripping off one of the biggest franchises in the world doesn't hurt anyone. I'm mad about the hollow knight ripoff because that's very different— that's an indie game by just a few people that became popular, something that could actually be hurt by a ripoff. It's a shame that pocketpair seem to be concerned with what they can get away with rather than what they should.

So yeah, if you don't wanna give your money to pocketpair, don't! If you don't wanna play the game, don't! That's fair! But the people conflating enjoyment of the game with moral bankruptcy are going too far— and yes, I have seen people do that. Passing around unsubstantiated claims of theft is not helpful for anyone. There's much bigger and worse things to be upset or worried over right now without having to make false accusations.

If I could do it all again, I'd probably pirate it, because yeah, I'm not sure how comfortable I am giving money to a company like pocketpair, who are making a ripoff of an indie game (and I didn't know they were doing this until today) and who lack in artistic integrity, but that's a personal choice for everyone. No ethical consumption under capitalism and all that, if that's something you ascribe to. But if you don't ascribe to that or feel it doesn't apply here, don't buy it, that's totally fair and valid and your choice. I never want to antagonize anyone, and that's certainly not what I'm trying to do here.

And my last topic: some people in the notes have brought up that you can enslave people. This is technically true. It's an aspect of the game that makes me uncomfortable. I'm almost certain the ability to capture humans was put in the game as a way to acknowledge that pals and humans aren't so different; they're all creatures, and there's nothing mystical separating them like there is with pokemon. (Also, I think they probably thought it would be funny.) This is also something the game doesn't tell you about and doesn't encourage.

When you prepare to throw a sphere at a pal, it shows you the percent chance of you successfully catching it. But if you aim at a human, nothing comes up. It heavily implies that you can't catch people. You'd only discover that they can indeed go inside the spheres if in some bizarre and horrible accident, you miss a pal and it hits a hostile npc instead, or if you intentionally throw the sphere at someone despite it giving no indication whatsoever that people can be captured.

I've never done this intentionally. I did have one bizarre and horrible accident where I accidentally hit the "throw pal sphere" button instead of throwing out my pal at a hostile npc. It did not capture him. The different percent chance of success that comes up after the thing is already in the ball came up, and it was shockingly low compared to even extremely strong pals. But this taught me something: trying to intentionally catch people is clearly a huge waste of resources if the odds of success are so terrible.

BUT. Despite all this, the fact remains that you can indeed capture people. That's something the game allows you to do. That's something they built in. And I kinda get why, but it's still immensely uncomfortable to think about people doing. It's an aspect you can ignore entirely or even more likely never find out about at all unless you see some weird post online going "WOAH you can catch PEOPLE!!!!! Awesome!!!!" or a post like this, telling you it's possible but not flaunted. Just because you can doesn't mean you should... But it's there. Again, I don't think enjoying the game makes one morally bankrupt just because of this, but it's a perfectly good reason to not play the game. I truly believe the intention behind it was not super nefarious, but that doesn't mean it's totally fine and chill for that function to be there. But some people make it out to be something that's obvious or that's encouraged when that's distinctly not the case, so I wanted to clarify. I'm not saying that you shouldn't care or be upset, but I think everyone should be able to have the full picture.

has everyone gotten their knee-jerk reactions to palworld out. can i throw my two cents in

[florenceisfalling]

ok so apparently the whabooski/yourredscars person has a habit of tracing art and stealing other people's designs :( sorry i reblogged from them, hopefully they dont do that kinda thing anymore but yeah i don't support that kind of thing unless you have permission and credit 👍

[dailyadventureprompts]

I was wondering if I could request a diety? If so may I request a goddess that is for the Gith what Moradin is for the Dwarves?

Deity: Urania, The One Who Names The Stars

Hear me, brothers, sisters, my fellow orphans of the vast,

We are lost, but we are not forgotten,

The Bright Maiden has set a Star Burning for us,

And she calls us Home

The wild unknown and the simple laws that govern the universe, the cold embrace of space and the warmth of distant stars, the mystery of the infinite horizon and the knowledge of your course through it: The goddess Urania is a being of contrasts. Patron to astronomers, navigators, and any who find themselves alone with only the stars for guidance, the bright maiden is called upon by many who sail the astral sea to bless their journeys into the vast cosmos and to guide them back home again. 

Legend says it was It was the Gith who found her, aboard a lost and aimless refugee ship too full of desperate souls who’d just escaped from the tyranny of the ilithid. They saw a stranger cast adrift in the void, and though they did not have enough to go around they cast out a line and pulled her from the void because the thought of leaving anyone behind without hope of rescue was too terrible to bear. In rescuing her they rescued themselves, for when the captain gave up his ration of water the goddess awoke with her eyes full of grateful tears, whispering to him of a course towards sanctuary just as a new star flared on the horizon.

Since then it has been tradition among the Gith ( and those who have learned the art of astral navigation from them) to keep a star shaped lantern burning in the goddess’s honour, and to rescue any they find adrift, no matter who they might be.

 Adventure Hooks:

Knowledge of the stars is sacred to those who follow Urania, whether it be in charting new courses through the astral sea or divining the movement and influence of celestial bodies. An acolyte of such an order believes she’s had a star-granted vision of a previously unexplored reach of the astral sea but her superiors won’t let her mount an expedition as much of the nearby territory has a reputation for being dangerous, or downright hostile. To this end she hires the party to help her go delving a long abandoned archive-moon in the hopes of discovering ancient records that her research hints might just contain a means of traversal through this hostile stretch of space.

Much ink has been spilled over the potential connections between the bright maiden and Nyx, matronly goddess of primordial darkness, with most scholars agreeing to disagree as to whether the goddess are enemies, aspects of the same being, or somehow related.  This debate comes to a head when a night-shrouded acolyte of Nyx steals the star lamp from the vessel of a famous spelljammer captain on the eve of an important voyage, darkening the lamp with occult magics to use in some mysterious ritual. Both men are, as the party discovers after being hired to recover the lamp, brothers, and as their pursuit goes on it becomes wildly clear that the two goddess are having some kind of a wager over the outcome of the theft, subtly influencing events in their own favour

Along their travels, the party discover a reinforced capsule containing an ember of celestial fire, a nascent star that some enterprising mage plucked from the sky in an attempt to tap its power. The item is tremendously useful, (acting as a pearl of power that refreshes after short rests), but in moments of channelling the star’s energy the attuned creature is more and more filled with feelings of loneliness and need to return to a home they’ve never seen before. The ember is alive, if not sentient, and longs to be returned to the patch of sky from which it was stolen. Doing so can be quite an undertaking, but will reward the party with the Bright Maiden’s favour in the process. 

Titles: The Bright Maiden, Lady of Far Horizons, The Infinite,

Signs: The appearance of new stars, astronomical lines and diagrams appearing in the sky, a sudden awareness of a heading leading either home or into the unknown

Symbols: A star and sextant or other tool of navigation, lantern with star iconography or burning with celestial fire.