When the setting was first released it was styled Plane Scape and though has subsequently been used as Planescape the registration may date as far back as the initial early 90s.
Trademarks are a funny thing though, take Coca-Cola. If they register only COCA-COLA with the hyphen, that doesn’t allow Pepsi to make a sparkling brown sugar drink called Coca Cola. Intention is important in these matters, not just the technicality of what is registered. Registrations also allow for “stylisation”, which means you don’t need to register a new mark to stylise your existing mark.
The trademark would say Registered and Renewed if that was the case, because it would be far older than 10 years, and you need to renew trademarks at least once every about ten years. The current live trademark was only filed in 2016 and registered in 2020 according to this link. Besides, the image for the word mark uses the spelling with no spaces, so it’s not consistent.
Justia works with US trademarks and law. In the US trademarks currently need to be renewed every 10 years - prior to the reduction in the late 1900s they appear to be needed to be renewed only every 20 years. I don’t live in the UK, so the apparent 30 year renew requirement is much longer.
Also it seems Wizards of the Coast were somehow able to keep their Planescape UK trademark registration intact despite letting every other Planescape related trademark registration become canceled/abandoned. I’m not sure if they had to keep up with the trademark, or if registrations in the UK last much longer without having to be kept up to date. I guess they let it lapse at the time in the US for some reason, but when they started Dungeon Master’s Guild, I think they realized they should have live registrations for the legacy setting names they had to have more power under the law to manage the use of them. I think a company would want to keep other companies in check when they’re licensing certain IPs to others.
One thing that should be larger and more prominent is large food and water storage areas. Castles, during sieges, were designed to not only house and feed the normal staff but the subjects from outlying farms as well.
It could be a place to add some details.
Eg: Huge underground cave that was turned into a natural water cistern but is now filled with something else...
May or may not be an actual room in a castle, but there’s often going to be one or multiple cesspits. This could literally be simply a pit under a garderobe/bathroom or it could be a walled and enclosed space, but if present it would be serviced regularly by gong farmers.
More detail: The cesspits will usually be placed outside the walls (and away from the water storage) of the castle and the garderobes were often placed in the outer walls with a shaft leading to the outside of the castle.
It sounds like Mattel will disallow the use of AI generated images in future official works:
The Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game franchise says it won’t allow artists to use artificial intelligence technology to draw its cast of sorcerers, druids and other characters and scenery.
@RGB3x3@TheTango it makes it easier but think of all the talented people who draw and actually create art. Their skills go unused and also the fact ai art uses other peoples art without their permission to learn and create. It’s not a simple answer and there are multiple reasons why ai art is frowned upon and disliked.
Did you people even read the article? This is about an official artist creating official artwork using AI.
And expecting DMs to pay for artists to create fanworks of characters or other campaign backgrounds and whatnot is really outlandish, sorry.
You think people, including poor ones, are going to pay hundreds of bucks for some artworks for their D&D sessions? And you think I need the reality check? lol
Maybe just stop the whole bad faith trolling entirely because this is just cringe.
The linked article doesn’t provide any details, it merely states that an artist used AI to “create” or “generate” artwork. However in a different article about the same incident the artist claims that he only used an AI as a tool to enhance his own drawings, and provides before and after images. Assuming he isn’t lying to cover his ass, IMO the AI contributed very little to the artwork.
AI very provably does use other peoples’ art more than any other artist. It needs huge amounts of media that’s used as a basis for training material — far, far more than your average artist will consume. You can teach a person how to draw, sculpt, paint, model, etc. without ever showing them another artist’s work. You really can’t do that with ML tools we have currently. It’s not completely impossible, but you would be relying on getting a lot of training data in another way and it would probably require a lot of input from humans on the output end to make a model that can come up with something reasonably comprehensible. A
We don’t have much in terms of laws about this kind of usage because it’s not like in the past a company like DC comics has decided that they want to make Jim Lee’s style to become the “official” style of DC comics, but they don’t want to pay Jim Lee, so they hire a Chinese art factory to mimic his style and cut him out. Something like that wouldn’t be illegal in the sense of current laws, but probably would have been substantially more expensive than simply hiring Lee himself. However, it definitely would have been unethical. It also would likely have caused a legal challenge that might have affected how our laws deal with replication of a “style”. Even in cases where a company establishes their own style guide based on an art style of a specific artist as is common in animation (where it’s understood that the usage of that style is part of the concept art), there is typically an evolution in how that style as it standardizes- See “Steamboat Mickey” versus current versions of Mickey Mouse, or the changes from the first season to the current season of the Simpsons for example.
This isn’t about using AI tools for your average DM to make art resources for their home campaign. That’s a perfectly reasonable use-case. It isn’t as though your average DM is likely to be commissioning custom art every time there’s a new character in the campaign - they’ll do what we’ve always done: Find reference material that’s “close enough” from copyrighted works and say “something like this.” But if a company is going to start digging into AI, then we as the audience have the right to say, “No, I’m not going to support that and won’t buy a product produced in that way. I assign value to art made the ‘traditional’ way” The obsolescence of industries due to technology is not an inevitability - by all rights it’s entirely possible that an automated process to make perfect, nutritionally balanced food bars that are both cheaper and healthier than a McDonald’s burger could have been produced by now - but no one wants that. Very few people have a diet that consists entirely of Soylent. Just as there’s more to food than nutrition and value, there’s more to art than pictures. The so-called “free hand of the market” goes both ways.
I’m a digital artist. I’m in an interesting position in this debate, because I see the value and the power of tools like MidJourney and Stable Diffusion and the like. The prospect of training an AI tool on my own work and giving it to the public to be able to make their own art using my style is exactly the kind of artsy-fartsy “concept” thing I dig. I use things like “content-aware fill” tools and special brushes in my work that are basically cousins to these systems and they help me immensely. But also I think that artists should have the right to choose whether their work is used in this way and that if a company is profiting from the usage of an AI model that’s been trained from mass scraping of the internet there should be some legal consideration for that.
In particular, only human- created content is currently eligible for copyright protection.
About a decade ago, there was a case over who owned the copyright of a bunch of selfies taken by macaques with a camera left lying out by a wildlife photographer. The US Copyright Office ultimately decided the images were public domain since they weren’t created by a human.
Because of that, AI art isn’t eligible for copyright protections.
If you make a picture book using stable diffusion and chatgpt, the only thing you can protect is the layout you did by hand of the public domain text and images on the page. Someone could sell a competing derivative work with their own original layout.
@RGB3x3@TheTango
I think for the common person its fine, like making character art or some custom monster/place/whatevs for your own campaign but when you pay for it from a big, known publisher i think its reasonable and ethical to employ talanted artists.
This is particularly due to an artist using AI art for a source book they’re publishing.
That’s a problem for them because only human- created work is eligible for copyright protection; both animal-created art and AI art is inherently public domain. They want to control the IP in the source books, so they think it’s a problem if people can legally just copy the images out of them.
I love epic level campaigns. I love dealing with all the super powerful game breaking magics and abilities. I usually set them in the astral plane, the hells, or more recently, space. I started reading about it’s version of space a few months ago and I love everything about it. Space in D&D is fucking gnarly. Like, even the gods of Toril and other planes are afraid of space.
I’m not sure yet where I stand on using AI to enhance images you made. I think if it’s for commercial purposes, it shouldn’t be ok since it would essentially be profiting off others work.
But in this case, my big issue is they did this without telling their team or bosses. This is essentially no different from hiring a third party to enhance your work so you don’t have to do as much and pocketing the difference. Sounds like they’re updating their guidelines though and I hope this person is fired or won’t be contracted again. They should probably switch the art to the earlier versions in D&D Beyond and future printings too. Which is another thing, the “enhanced” one doesn’t seem better enough to have warranted this type of risk. I’m not sure what that person was thinking.
Thank you! It should take about 3hrs, but since this One-Shot leans more on the roleplay aspect it can change depending on your players. I’m pretty sure you can get this done in a weekend unless you’re running 1hr sessions!
If you end up using my notes, let me know how it goes and if I should change anything
Do it, it’s so rewarding! I know it can overwhelming at first, but with my notes, it’ll be a breeze!!! The most important thing is just be flexible, your players will often times throw a curve ball. If you get stuck just look up a rule, if it takes to long make a ruling and move on!
i can imagine that its rewarding. One more thing, for how many people is this campaign? I dont think we are gonna be a whole lot, maybe more like 2-3 people without the DM
dnd
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.