Technically, the artist needs to (and does) credit the author of the artwork he referenced and only mention what and where from the character is. Given that, this is a 3d/gaming/technical thingie-ma-jibs website that does not (and probably shouldn't really) reflect on the circumstance of the character itself, but concentrate on creation and techniques used in creation. The name of the character is referenced, but nowhere on the original art the name Sam Riegel is mentioned. As much as critter community is nice and welcoming, this part of "CREDIT THIS OR CREDIT THAT" irritates me. IMHO, Credit is given where credit is due. This 3d model was made with learning purposes only, whereas the original art is being sold. Instead of commenting "GIVE CREDIT" comment "COOL ART OF SAM'S CHARACTER" or "GREAT CRITICAL ROLE ART". All that said, this is an amazing rendition of the original artwork of the character of critical role. As a critter, I love both this piece and the idea of other critter being so talented! Peace, a member of the wonderful critter family.
You need to make it clear that this is an interpretation of someone else’s character and credit them (Sam Reigel, from Critical Role).
As great as this is, it’s not actually “your character” so you should really credit Sam Reigel of Critical Role who created this character, and make it clear this is your interpretation of it, because you make it sound like it was all your idea.
Andrew Maximov helped to organize a number of very interesting roundtables about AI and ‘Art Robots’.
Last year we’ve published a pretty hefty article, based on the amazing talk by Andrew Maximov. This talk explored the new ways art production will be organized in video games industry. This year, he helped to organize three very interesting roundtable discussions, united by one topic – Machine Learning.
Here’s a little schedule:
It would be awesome to visit these talks and figure out how does the world of 3d production change with the introduction of more complex AI systems.