WotC Denies Using AI Generative Art In Promo Materials, Later Admits, Yeah, It Did
from the whoopsie dept
D&D and Magic: The Gathering publisher, Wizards of the Coast (WotC), has certainly been pissing folks off as of late. Between its attempt to change its OGL license for D&D both in the future and retroactively last year combined with sending the literal Pinkerton Agency after someone who received some unreleased Magic cards in error, the company appears to have taken a draconian turn in recent years. Then, over the summer, there was a bunch of backlash when WotC was found to have included art from one of its artists that had been partially generated using AI generative art in one of its books. After that whole fiasco, WotC publicly swore off using any art in its products that was not 100% human created.
And it’s important to note that this is a huge thing in the D&D and Magic worlds. The books, cards, and associated items that players and fans buy from these games have always been revered in part for the fantastic art that has come along with them. And the artists contributing to them have been equally celebrated.
So, when sharp-eyed observers of recent promotional art that came out for Magic pointed out it sure looked like the images around the cards showed signs of having been generated by AI, well, WotC came out with a very strong denial.
“We understand confusion by fans given the style being different than card art, but we stand by our previous statement,” the company tweeted. “This art was created by humans and not AI.”
And even as many sleuths on social media and elsewhere kept up the pushback insisting with example after example within the images themselves that, no, this had all the telltale signs of being AI generated, even that PC Gamer article was referring to all of this as an unfortunate “false positive” resulting from a hyper-sensitivity to the intrusion of AI in art and image generation.
But, no, it turns out that the images around the cards was in fact generated in part using AI, as admitted later on by WotC itself.
After sharp-eyed Magic: The Gathering fans cried foul over a recent promotional image’s seeming use of generative AI, Wizards of the Coast initially asserted that it was fully human-made. However, just two days on Wizards has deleted the offending marketing post and acknowledged that generative tools were used in the image.
On Twitter, Wizards of the Coast stated that the image background was sourced from a third-party vendor, and claimed that “It looks like some AI components that are now popping up in industry standard tools like Photoshop crept into our marketing creative, even if a human did the work to create the overall image.”
You can go read the company’s additional full statement on its website as well. And, as statements about such things go, it’s a fairly good one. It points out that this wasn’t done intentionally or with knowledge by the company, that the company would be working with its 3rd party vendors to make it clear that human-made art is a requirement, and it promised transparency moving forward when it came to this sort of thing.
But the real lesson here is that companies have to be very careful with this sort of thing. The internet has enough well-trained Sherlocks out there who are holding companies to their word, looking for anywhere where AI generated content is being snuck in to replace human-made content that, as the technology stands today, there’s a good chance any such uses will be found out. They might as well save themselves the trouble and just make sure the humans are doing the work.
Filed Under: ai, marketing, promos
Companies: wizards of the coast, wotc


Comments on “WotC Denies Using AI Generative Art In Promo Materials, Later Admits, Yeah, It Did”
meh
Sounds like a mistake to me. Not a big deal so long as they dont use AI for the cards themselves.
(Source)
Re:
That’s nonsense, of course. Art can be enjoyed without worrying about how it was created. The people who say differently sound like the same ones who say you can’t enjoy art by artists who don’t meet their purity standards.
Re: Re:
Yeah, imagine having to fight a moral quandary on whether a human or AI decided that a single dot in the middle of a large canvas constituted art. Or a pair of glasses in a duct tape boundary on the floor. Or a banana taped to a wall at an apparently copyright-protected angle of rotation.
Re: Re: Re:
I greatly enjoyed the phrase “apparently copyright-protected angle of rotation” without first stopping to think if it was written by ChatGPT. But also from what I’ve seen, ChatGPT isn’t that imaginative.
Re: Re: Re:2
Imagine for a moment what would happen if, indeed, ChatGPT started owning and protecting its copyright to the responses it generated.
This is why I personally think that artists who choose to go with the “copyright” angle have no idea or appreciation for the Pandora’s Box they’re going to open if they set precedents.
Re: Re: Re:
“Art” is a work intended to interact with the aesthetic (i.e., non-utilitarian) sense of its audience. Curation is also art. When an artist hangs an ordinary banana in a museum, that is art because the artist has produced a work intended to interact with the aesthetic sense of an audience.
When someone uses AI to produce images, they are choosing prompts and selecting from a variety of outputs. Those images are therefore at.
A solid white canvas, or a single dot, or a canvas with deliberately splatterrd paint, or multiple pictures of Marilyn Monroe – all art.
Re: Re: Re:2
See, I’d argue that we’re at a stage similar to the opening of The Incredibles, where Helen Parr says that “everyone’s special” and her kid grumpily replies “Which is as good as saying nobody is”.
People can leverage semantics to say that someone dropping a single dot on canvas is the height of cultural expression that deserves to be displayed in a museum and cost more than what most of us make in a year. They can do that, but I’d say that it’s completely fucking unhelpful for people trying to get into the field of art and design. It teaches nothing useful aside from the fact that some people get rewarded when they make memes for the rich and famous. It makes art and design students feel worthless for not rising to that level of success with their work. It justifies shitty, demeaning, gatekeeping practices in design schools and firms just because your idea of what’s good art and design doesn’t gel with the popular opinion being circlejerked at the time.
Because ultimately, what you’re critiquing isn’t the art as much as it is the name written on a little piece of paper on the side. A student can do a little dot on canvas and never rise to the same level of infamy as some big-name post-Nichetscue Cubian transmorphic queer werewolf installation specialist who does literally the same thing. Because it’s boiled down to a popularity contest. And to that I say, small wonder nobody’s shedding tears for the artists.
Re:
People living in actual cultural wastelands: You’re supposed to feel joy at seeing art?
Before issuing a statement try to make sure it's based on facts
The big kicker is all they had to do to avoid the egg on their face was check before issuing a blanket denial, as now even if this was an honest mistake they’re left looking like they got caught red-handed doing something they’d claimed innocence on mere moments before.
‘To the best of our knowledge the artwork we use on our cards is not in whole or in part AI created, however upon hearing concerns regarding this we are currently looking into the matter and will get back to you with a more definitive answer once our investigation is complete.’
Short, to the point, and most importantly it wouldn’t be making claims that might end up lacking factual basis either way, preventing people from catching them in a (whether deliberate or not) false statement.
Corpo ratfuck execs gonna corpo ratfuck exec. Even if it actually was a legit mistake, I’m not taking their word for it in a million years. They’re exactly as trustworthy as any other corporation. No more; no less.
You can go read the company’s additional full statement on its website as well. And, as statements about such things go, it’s a fairly good one.
Hard pass if there is any further writing similar to their use of the word creative here. Goddamn.
Re:
That’s how “creative” is used in industry. At WotC, the Creative department is responsible for Magic the Gathering story, art, and world building – aspects unrelated to how the game plays, but essential to making it an attractive game that people want to play.
Re: Re:
By the way, to see just how good a job Magic Creative does, you might want to check out the Magic story The Truth of Names that introduced the first transwoman character in Magic lore, Alesha, Who Smiles at Death. It’s terrific story, even for a diehard trans-skeptic like me.
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for that, now I know who I’m going to talk about introducing children to Magic The Gathering.
Re: Re: Re:2
Would that be at the back of a van where you also teach them about the gay penguins?
Re: Re: Re:3
omg yas queen
Re: Re: Re:4
Tap my fetchland, baby!
“It points out that this wasn’t done intentionally or with knowledge by the company, that the company would be working with its 3rd party vendors to make it clear that human-made art is a requirement, and it promised transparency moving forward when it came to this sort of thing.”
So a company that managed to track down someone who was shipped product early, tried to change the rules they created, hunts down people who get early details about sets (lets just pass around a PDF it’ll be fine)… managed to overlook telling those they hire to not use AI because we are an AI Art free company.
Or…. the assholes as Hasbro thought they could get away with it because AI doesn’t expect that much compensation for its work.
Thats a real puzzler.
Taps 2U
No.
Heads-Up Kids.
It is time for the first Artificial Rock Band!
Then the first Artificial Blues Band!
Then Punk
Then Classic, Folk, Country, Metal and everything else ever composed.
The soon2B famous artificial musicians can even have their very own animated videos as concerts. And they don’t even have to be human!!!
tomorrow.com
Oh yeah. Almost forgot.
When copyright was first established it was a fairly good idea.
That idea was stolen by businesspeople strictly for their own profit.
So.
Fuck Copyright