the license link in the help file - LudicArts.txt inside the .zip conflicts with CC-BY 4.0. It is fine to have your own proprietary license for content distributed from your website, but the content shared on OGA must be under the terms of the licenses accepted on OGA. Would you be willing to omit the license link from this package. Until then I must mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent usage you may not approve of. Let me know if you have any questions.
I have encountered some of that, but I may have had better luck shutting their lies down since the reason I rejected their art was not because it was AI art. It was because it didn't meet my commission criteria. In my case, I didn't care if it was AI or not so long as it created a stable animation loop that transitioned smoothly and realistically. The artwork they tried to give me and say "I finished the commission. pay up." looked like crap when it was animated. So I said, "no, you didn't finish. My requirements clearly say xyz and this doesn't meet that."
My point being, be sure to define your requirements in a way that excludes the garbage artifacts that often show up in AI art. Specifying "no AI art" might help a little, though I think you'll get more of the 'this is a witch hunt' responses for that. It isn't actually very specific. It's like saying "no blockchain!" but there are multiple forms of blockchain tech, many of which have nothing to do with the typical notorious "Steal art, mint NFT, sell it without artist's permission, argue the theft is actually beneficial to artist when caught" tactic.
Ok, wasn't sure if it was Graphic Design Review cakes. Or perhaps cakes used as some new form of NFT involving Global Depositary Receipts. Geothermal Data Repository didn't make much sense unless these cakes are REALLY HOT! haha!
AI will cause rates that artists are paid to plummet.
"To get a good result out of AI the client will need to clearly specify what he wants. Designers, we are safe."
AI (currently) sucks at producing game-ready assets aside from concept art.
AI is just a next gen tool FOR artists.
These four suppositions can all be true at the same time and, IMHO, seem to suggest a good outcome for us ahead.
laypeople like myself may be able to use AI to create artwork that would otherwise be beyond their reach without hiring artists. However, at least for me, the content I can prompt is still only the kind of stuff I wouldn't have hired an artist for anyway.
Commissioned artists already have an edge with the skills it takes to understand what the client really wants (which is a crossover skill with AI prompting), and they have the skills to manually alter an AI image to get it juuuust right.
Aritst: How about this? <AI generated concept scene> Client: No. More blood. Less cotton candy. Artist: Oh, so it's a *creepy* tickle monster, not a *cutesy* tickle monster. So like this? <New AI generated concept scene featuring elongated-fingers-with-too-many-joints instead of feathers> Client: yeah! but... now make it move like in video games where it can play on repeat and still look good. Artist: Make a spritesheet of it with stable animation loops and walk cycles? Client: Yeah, that.
Artist can save a bunch of time by leveraging AI to communicate the client's desires without hours of wasted concept sketches. The artist still has to chisel off the rough edges and make it work right. Commission rates may drop, but not necessarily because artists are being paid less per hour. They'll just have to work less hours to get the same tasks done.
Yes, you CAN share a tool, it just has to be secondary to the assets. The main feature of this particular page should be the assets themselves. Same for source. You can include source code for the tool or links to the tool, but only if they are "bonus content" included with the main feature: game assets.
Thanks. Be sure to change the category as well. 2D art.
That is totally fine, but usually the person you're submitting on behalf of doesn't have an active OGA account already. Why hasn't Quaternius uploaded these him/herself?
@rgsdev: This is a fantastic tool! However, this download doesn't have any assets in it. It is fine to link to the generator in the description, but there should be actual assets available here. Use the generator to make several good examples of assets, and share them here, please. This is a game asset repository, not a tool repository nor a link repository.
If you are submitting an art asset, you must upload the whole art asset in a usable form.
Specifically, if someone must go to a different website to obtain a usable version of your submitted work, we cannot accept it (however, it is perfectly fine to request that someone go to your website).
Your title and preview images must be descriptive of the content you actually uploaded. Specifically, if what you uploaded is a sample of a larger pack, the preview image must describe the art you actually uploaded to OGA, and not the additional art that you are advertising. It is fine to link to the larger pack in your description.
Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".
the license link in the help file - LudicArts.txt inside the .zip conflicts with CC-BY 4.0. It is fine to have your own proprietary license for content distributed from your website, but the content shared on OGA must be under the terms of the licenses accepted on OGA. Would you be willing to omit the license link from this package. Until then I must mark this as having a licensing issue to prevent usage you may not approve of. Let me know if you have any questions.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Agreed.
I have encountered some of that, but I may have had better luck shutting their lies down since the reason I rejected their art was not because it was AI art. It was because it didn't meet my commission criteria. In my case, I didn't care if it was AI or not so long as it created a stable animation loop that transitioned smoothly and realistically. The artwork they tried to give me and say "I finished the commission. pay up." looked like crap when it was animated. So I said, "no, you didn't finish. My requirements clearly say xyz and this doesn't meet that."
My point being, be sure to define your requirements in a way that excludes the garbage artifacts that often show up in AI art. Specifying "no AI art" might help a little, though I think you'll get more of the 'this is a witch hunt' responses for that. It isn't actually very specific. It's like saying "no blockchain!" but there are multiple forms of blockchain tech, many of which have nothing to do with the typical notorious "Steal art, mint NFT, sell it without artist's permission, argue the theft is actually beneficial to artist when caught" tactic.
Ok, wasn't sure if it was Graphic Design Review cakes. Or perhaps cakes used as some new form of NFT involving Global Depositary Receipts. Geothermal Data Repository didn't make much sense unless these cakes are REALLY HOT! haha!
These four suppositions can all be true at the same time and, IMHO, seem to suggest a good outcome for us ahead.
laypeople like myself may be able to use AI to create artwork that would otherwise be beyond their reach without hiring artists. However, at least for me, the content I can prompt is still only the kind of stuff I wouldn't have hired an artist for anyway.
Commissioned artists already have an edge with the skills it takes to understand what the client really wants (which is a crossover skill with AI prompting), and they have the skills to manually alter an AI image to get it juuuust right.
Artist can save a bunch of time by leveraging AI to communicate the client's desires without hours of wasted concept sketches. The artist still has to chisel off the rough edges and make it work right. Commission rates may drop, but not necessarily because artists are being paid less per hour. They'll just have to work less hours to get the same tasks done.
Cakes from the German Democratic Republic?
Looks great! Thanks.
Yes, you CAN share a tool, it just has to be secondary to the assets. The main feature of this particular page should be the assets themselves. Same for source. You can include source code for the tool or links to the tool, but only if they are "bonus content" included with the main feature: game assets.
Thanks. Be sure to change the category as well. 2D art.
That is totally fine, but usually the person you're submitting on behalf of doesn't have an active OGA account already. Why hasn't Quaternius uploaded these him/herself?
Agreed.@rgsdev: This is a fantastic tool! However, this download doesn't have any assets in it. It is fine to link to the generator in the description, but there should be actual assets available here. Use the generator to make several good examples of assets, and share them here, please. This is a game asset repository, not a tool repository nor a link repository.Per the submission guidelines:If you are submitting an art asset, you must upload the whole art asset in a usable form.Specifically, if someone must go to a different website to obtain a usable version of your submitted work, we cannot accept it (however, it is perfectly fine to request that someone go to your website).Your title and preview images must be descriptive of the content you actually uploaded. Specifically, if what you uploaded is a sample of a larger pack, the preview image must describe the art you actually uploaded to OGA, and not the additional art that you are advertising. It is fine to link to the larger pack in your description.EDIT: Fixed, thanks! :)
Yeah, I really hate how fuzzy it is. Fortunately, I've gotten pretty good at knowing where it is. Unfortunately, I have no good way to convey it to others other than to have them tell me what they did and I can say "yeah that's inspiration" or "nope that's derivation".
Pages