Secret Invasion Used AI Art for Credits Sequence

[Mister Mets]

Secret Invasion used AI Art for a credits sequence. Producer Ali Selim told Polygon it fit the themes of the story.

“When we reached out to the AI vendors, that was part of it — it just came right out of the shape-shifting, Skrull world identity, you know? Who did this? Who is this?” Selim says.

Like many people, Selim says he doesn’t “really understand” how the artificial intelligence works, but was fascinated with the ways in which the AI could translate the sense of foreboding he wanted for the series. “We would talk to them about ideas and themes and words, and then the computer would go off and do something. And then we could change it a little bit by using words, and it would change.”

Ars Technica describes the backlash.

On Wednesday, Marvel's latest comic book TV show, Secret Invasion, premiered on Disney+ to controversy: It features AI-generated motion graphics during its title sequence, and some fans and creators aren't happy about it. "For Marvel, whose whole empire is built on the work of artists to do this is disgusting and I for one shan’t be watching," tweeted Marvel comic artist Christian Ward, who worked on Black Bolt.

Jeff Simpson, a concept artist who directly worked on the Secret Invasion TV series for Marvel, tweeted, "Secret Invasion intro is AI generated. I’m devastated, I believe AI to be unethical, dangerous, and designed solely to eliminate artists' careers. Spent almost half a year working on this show and had a fantastic experience working with the most amazing people I ever met." In a following tweet, he clarified that he had nothing to do with the AI-generated intro.

I don't think Disney's doing anything wrong here, although from my perspective AI is a tool that artists can use, rather than a replacement. The main pitfalls are if it were to use an artist's work without compensation, but that's not the claim here. What do you guys think?

[thwhtGuardian]

Seems like a storm in a teacup to me

[Tofali]

I hope there are many ppl who react in derision towards any entertainment news outlet that peddles this non-story.

[babyblob]

I think is story is a nothingburger. We have Cgi and computer images all the time. USing AI art for the credits seems like it is nothing.

[j9ac9k]

I think this is mostly important to people in the industry who feel their livelihoods are at risk. However, it is of general interest for everyone because the precedents of how AI becomes perceived, treated and regulated in these industries first will help determine how AI is treated when it branches out and becomes much more prevalent and starts to potentially threaten everyone's livelihood.

[Mister Mets]

I hope there are many ppl who react in derision towards any entertainment news outlet that peddles this non-story.

I don't think it's a non-story. Some prominent artists are pissed.

If they're right, it's a relevant story.
If they're wrong, that's still a relevant story about unreasonable demands.

[Kevinroc]

Jen Bartel has some really good insight from the artist's perspective.

https://twitter.com/heyjenbartel/sta...72202523639808

I need people to focus on the real issue here: the value of creative labor, aka jobs. This is not about whether or not it qualifies as "art", whether or not it looks bad, etc. All of that is a just a distraction when we live in a world where we need to work to in order to live.

I don't frankly care whether you believe it qualifies as "art" or if you actually think it "fits the narrative", that stuff is ultimately irrelevant when the livelihood of creative workers is dissolving before our very eyes. Corporations that employ us have a choice in this.

Efficiency and tech advancement could be prioritized if we had a societal structure that didn’t require people to work in order to obtain access to basic resources required to stay alive such as healthcare, housing, and food. We prioritize jobs bc we lack a social safety net.

In the early 20th century, futurists imagined that we’d be living in a utopian society by the year 2000–one in which we would all have much more free time to pursue our hobbies and simply relax while automation took care of labor. That could have been achievable w/ regulation—

Had we continued on the path that mid-century New Deal and Great Society policies started us on, but over the past 40+ years, those policies have been systematically destroyed one by one leaving us in an unprecedented era of wealth inequality that borders on techno-feudalism.

So no, I don’t think I care about prioritizing technological advancement over preserving the livelihoods of actual flesh and blood people in our current climate. Ask me once we’ve managed to completely reverse the effects of unchecked capitalism and our gerontocratic congress

Pandora’s box has been opened. Now it’s about fighting for regulation and guardrails to ensure corporations don’t run completely unchecked with no concern for collateral damage. It’s about setting ethical standards such as opt-in datasets that don’t scrape private personal data

Literally artists who worked on the show are sharing their utter disappointment and disgust with this on Twitter today. Many of them are my friends and colleagues. Yeah, what *about* the real people who worked on the actual show beyond the intro? What a disservice to them.

Dan Slott and Tom Taylor are also quite unhappy with this.

https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/1671644868303568897

If they rushed out a bare bones opening credit sequence for next week and replaced the A.I. one, they would gain so much good will.

https://twitter.com/TomTaylorMade/st...68337322496000

If only Marvel, a company built on decades of work by incredible artists, had access to thousands of images of heroes and Skrulls set during Secret Invasion. But where could they possibly find such a resource?

https://twitter.com/TomTaylorMade/st...73140832362497

I have heard the excuses.
Professionals could have crafted exactly what they were after.
Don’t attempt to defend the use of AI over artists with me.
The potential death of all human creativity doesn’t need cheerleaders.

[James Cameron]

Yeah this was a misstep for sure. If they can't change the title sequence for the remaining episodes then they should at least apologize.

[thwhtGuardian]

I can see artists worrying a bit that this could replace them in the not so distant future I don't see this as something that needs to be changed or apologized for.

[Reviresco]

Secret Invasion used AI Art for a credits sequence. Producer Ali Selim told Polygon it fit the themes of the story.



Ars Technica describes the backlash.





I don't think Disney's doing anything wrong here, although from my perspective AI is a tool that artists can use, rather than a replacement. The main pitfalls are if it were to use an artist's work without compensation, but that's not the claim here. What do you guys think?

I think is story is a nothingburger. We have Cgi and computer images all the time. USing AI art for the credits seems like it is nothing.

It isn't like CGI or computer images at all, which requires an actual artist to create the image manipulate it digitally. It isn't nothing, it's theft and exploitation. Neither of you are addressing the rampant art theft that is being used to 'educate' the AI 'art.' AI works by scouring the internet and other collections of art as input, then spews out their 'art' based on that. That's why you see options like "in the style" of x artist.

It's the same with writing. They are stealing the works of writers and artists, without permission or compensation to "make" these atrocities.

I think this is mostly important to people in the industry who feel their livelihoods are at risk. However, it is of general interest for everyone because the precedents of how AI becomes perceived, treated and regulated in these industries first will help determine how AI is treated when it branches out and becomes much more prevalent and starts to potentially threaten everyone's livelihood.

This too. That's why whoever was responsible for this decision needs to held responsible and the credits replaced. It shouldn't be tolerated at all.

I can see artists worrying a bit that this could replace them in the not so distant future I don't see this as something that needs to be changed or apologized for.

A BIT worrying? In the future??? Someone has already been replaced and lost income with this AI opening credits. It's not like artists are getting paid decently or anything like the gazillion dollar media giants that are pushing this AI crap. You certainly don't see them happy to share all the information they've accrued free of charge and without permission.

[hyped78]

Marvel faces backlash over AI-generated opening credits

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...edits-backlash

[j9ac9k]

It isn't like CGI or computer images at all, which requires an actual artist to create the image manipulate it digitally. It isn't nothing, it's theft and exploitation. Neither of you are addressing the rampant art theft that is being used to 'educate' the AI 'art.' AI works by scouring the internet and other collections of art as input, then spews out their 'art' based on that. That's why you see options like "in the style" of x artist.

It's the same with writing. They are stealing the works of writers and artists, without permission or compensation to "make" these atrocities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BIT worrying? In the future??? Someone has already been replaced and lost income with this AI opening credits. It's not like artists are getting paid decently or anything like the gazillion dollar media giants that are pushing this AI crap. You certainly don't see them happy to share all the information they've accrued free of charge and without permission.

I think the first part of your statement will be the most important line drawn - using copyrighted material to feed the AI. I can see that being outlawed as part of copyright protection. But then you have companies like Disney, who own a crap TON of material, making their AI the best, so those laws ends up benefiting the biggest companies. You will then have new jobs crop up as young artists needing to make a buck spend 10 hours a day drawing **** just to feed a company's A.I. (is it that different from Marvel or some anime companies exploiting young artists?) In terms of court of public opinion - who knows how many consumers will actually care? (there are already a bunch of people here in the comments saying it doesn't matter)

In terms of the second part of your comment, Method - the studio that created it - has said that this particular job didn't cost anyone any work or pay. I didn't read the actual statement, but look it up if you want.

At some point, I think things will level out and this will just become another tool. Art has been advancing this whole time anyway - when people started creating art on computers, was anyone worried about the people who made pencils? People and industry will adapt and maybe fewer students will enroll in those art schools. (who, let's be honest, churn out a bunch of robots with the same style anyway flooding the market with pretty-looking mediocrity) True talent always wins out, and I say this as someone in the field whose job might be replaced a few months from now.

[Frontier]

I get they were going for some kind of retro, War of the Worlds, type thing but I didn't think it looked that great.

[Mister Mets]

It isn't like CGI or computer images at all, which requires an actual artist to create the image manipulate it digitally. It isn't nothing, it's theft and exploitation. Neither of you are addressing the rampant art theft that is being used to 'educate' the AI 'art.' AI works by scouring the internet and other collections of art as input, then spews out their 'art' based on that. That's why you see options like "in the style" of x artist.

It's the same with writing. They are stealing the works of writers and artists, without permission or compensation to "make" these atrocities.






This too. That's why whoever was responsible for this decision needs to held responsible and the credits replaced. It shouldn't be tolerated at all.




A BIT worrying? In the future??? Someone has already been replaced and lost income with this AI opening credits. It's not like artists are getting paid decently or anything like the gazillion dollar media giants that are pushing this AI crap. You certainly don't see them happy to share all the information they've accrued free of charge and without permission.

I did address the rampant art theft. "The main pitfalls are if it were to use an artist's work without compensation, but that's not the claim here." The articles were more about how this takes away opportunities from artists.

If this program uses the work of a copyrighted artist without compensation, that would be wrong. But there should be ways to have AI-generated art that doesn't come with that problem.

It still comes with the problem that it's a new form of competition for professional artists, but I don't support the argument for stagnation.

I think the first part of your statement will be the most important line drawn - using copyrighted material to feed the AI. I can see that being outlawed as part of copyright protection. But then you have companies like Disney, who own a crap TON of material, making their AI the best, so those laws ends up benefiting the biggest companies. You will then have new jobs crop up as young artists needing to make a buck spend 10 hours a day drawing **** just to feed a company's A.I. (is it that different from Marvel or some anime companies exploiting young artists?) In terms of court of public opinion - who knows how many consumers will actually care? (there are already a bunch of people here in the comments saying it doesn't matter)

In terms of the second part of your comment, Method - the studio that created it - has said that this particular job didn't cost anyone any work or pay. I didn't read the actual statement, but look it up if you want.

At some point, I think things will level out and this will just become another tool. Art has been advancing this whole time anyway - when people started creating art on computers, was anyone worried about the people who made pencils? People and industry will adapt and maybe fewer students will enroll in those art schools. (who, let's be honest, churn out a bunch of robots with the same style anyway flooding the market with pretty-looking mediocrity) True talent always wins out, and I say this as someone in the field whose job might be replaced a few months from now.

Hiring young artists to churn out examples for the model (and taking advantage of public domain material) seems to be the easiest fix to the "theft" argument.

[Kirby101]

Jen Bartel has some really good insight from the artist's perspective.

https://twitter.com/heyjenbartel/sta...72202523639808

Bartel hits the most important point. AI will put millions, even tens of millions out of work, we have nothing in place to deal with this. When the rich and powerful no longer have anybody to sell the crap that makes them rich and powerful, and the ones displaced have no where to turn for their basic needs, stuff will hit the fan.