UK Games Expo AI policy: prepare an artwork provenance packet

UK Games Expo's AI policy raises a question for exhibitors: what should an artwork query include when the finished image does not reveal how it was made? Prepare the original, identify exactly what changed, and show where the final asset will appear. A general statement that a game is "mostly human-made" gives an organizer much less to assess.

What the published policy says

The official UKGE policy prohibits products created wholly or to a significant extent with AI. It covers items exhibited or displayed as well as those sold, including game artwork and text, accessories, clothing and books.

The page allows room for computerized spell checking, minor editing, production assistance and accessibility tools while requiring humans to carry out the central creative process. It does not give an allowed percentage of AI material. Organizers may require removal of prohibited items and take further action if an exhibitor refuses.

The site currently advertises the June 4 to 6, 2027 event. The policy page itself has no publication date, so this article does not assign one to it.

In a public board-games discussion, u/vinceherman asked where the boundary would fall and how it would be enforced. The official wording answers some of that question, but it does not resolve every possible editing process.

Start with an asset list, not a verdict on the whole game

Review each distinct asset before asking about the finished product. The following entries are fictional examples, not decisions made by UKGE:

The generated-background case needs a specific answer. A small region can carry a large part of an image's creative content; measuring pixels alone cannot supply a policy threshold that the organizer has not published.

Use the list to find gaps in your own records. If the artist supplied only a flattened final image, ask for an accurate account of the process and whatever supporting files they can legitimately provide. Do not reconstruct a fictional sequence of sketches to fill the gap.

Build one comparison page for the uncertain asset

For card-forest-v2.png, our proposed packet would contain:

1. The original human-created illustration, labeled with its actual filename and creator.
2. The final version beside it, at the same scale, with the replaced region outlined.
3. A short process note naming the tool and describing what it generated or altered.
4. The intended use: card face, box, rulebook, stand display or another precise location.
5. Links to the retained source files and any relevant artist agreement or permission records.

Keep originals separate from annotated copies. A comparison page should make the change easy to inspect without altering the underlying evidence. If a source file cannot be shared publicly, state that it is available through an appropriate private review route rather than publishing it without permission.

Ask about the actual material

A specific query might read:

This is an original sample request. It has not been sent to UKGE, and it is not an approval. Replace every process detail with what actually happened. Retain the organizer's response with the exact version submitted; a later redesign may need a new question.

Use a visual board to make the comparison readable

Creatos's flow editor can group imported images with text notes and export a PNG. Use those groups to place the original, final image and process explanation together. Keep the underlying artwork and agreements in their original files; the exported board is a readable overview.

This packet is a suggested preparation aid, not an official UKGE submission format or a certificate of compliance. Check the organizer's current instructions before relying on an earlier answer, and resolve unclear assets before committing them to the exhibition.