The problem at the moment is that there is so much confusion over the legal aspects of AI images. For example, Getty Images is suing Stability AI for scraping images from its websites for training purposes. However, Getty Images is guilty of claiming copyright over public domain images. Claiming copyright over public domain content This is known as Copyfraud.

Then there is also what is classed as fair use in the United States while the European Union has different laws regarding the use of copyrighted material for certain purposes. As Subeta is a US based game site, the rules should be according to US laws once it's been established whether or not the way AI image generators are trained comes under fair use.

I'm not a CW creator but if I had any artistic ability, would it be against the rules for me to generate a steampunk dress in the style of da Vinci and then use this image as inspiration for drawing and painting a CW?

I think this is exactly why this discussion is super beneficial - bringing different perspectives together to talk through the "what" and "why" of site rules and help staff create rules that are (1) ethical, (2) clear, (3) able to be enforced consistently, and (4) realistic / fair. I mean, I see validity on both "sides" of the discussion so far!

As a non-artist (visually arts speaking) it would be very helpful to have examples. Like, what is a piece of AI generated material that someone would want to use as a reference? Is it truly challenging to take an AI generated piece that inspired and seek out alternative, non-AI sources to use as the actual "references" for parts of the new art? How much effort needs to go into ensuring something isn't AI generated for it to be allowed to be used?

I think if we want to ban all use of AI generated materials as references, I think there needs to be a way to define what is considered "certain enough" that it is or is not AI generated. And, there needs to be a legally-minded way that we open up using other materials that aren't from the public domain. And I think both artistic voices and the voices of folks familiar with law regarding copyright and what not are needed in shaping the rules around this. For example, if someone brings an artist a photo of a dress from an online retailer can that be used as a reference? If someone finds a photograph of a famous painting, how much "inspiration" is allowed to be taken before it becomes "recreating"? It seems like the four change rule covers everyone's butts well. Definitely having rules be as clear as possible and have examples is key, and having feedback especially for newer artists / submitters be detailed and clear. New artists / submitters are important for keeping the site growing (money wise and community wise) so things that deter them like confusing or vague rules / feedback are counter to long-term goals here on Subeta imo.

I also think with how difficult it can be to determine what is or is not AI, there is a big difference between (1) creating AI generated materials and trying to use it on site as a CW / CI / etc, (2) generating AI materials to use as references, (3) being given a collage of several images to draw inspo from and 1 or 2 may be AI. To me 1 and 2 are absolutely not okay while 3 seems more nuanced. Benefit of the doubt should be given to artists, communication should be respectful and not coming from an assumption that they have done something wrong / malicious, and there should be a clear expectation of how much work has to go into ensuring a questionable image isn't AI generated.

Yup just wanted to chime in and say I totally agree with Em. It was clearly stated that nobody here is advocating for the usage of AI to generate "art". Everyone agrees that it's usage is unethical and should be done away with, because it harms us - the real life human being artists who do not use AI to create.

We're discussing why we ( the real life artists ) should be banned from practicing if among the inspiration collage of, say, 5 references a commissioner provides us, something like this, this or this appears, and the outcome ends up being like this: this

( For those curious, artists will usually take the overall 'feeling', 'theme' or 'general idea' of the collage, pull up other refs and work from that to create something new. We are not advocating for tracing or using AI to generate "art". )

Like Eivor so beautifully put it:

Thankyou for creating this board for us all to discuss this topic! I do think AI is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. I agree with so many of the awesome points on this board!

I have always seen AI as a problem and in recent months its been advancing so fast its shocking to see. Ive been tricked with videos thinking they are real when in fact they were 100% AI generated. Who is to say one day AI won't start parading as an artist and make whole webpages pretending to be one? Its getting super hard to draw the line between reality and AI.

As much as I think AI is stealing from real hardworking artists I do think there needs to be better clarification of the rules as the gray areas are extreme. I don't think its realistic to threaten creators to perma ban them just based on accidentally referencing AI art. If they went on and cont. to use AI knowing its AI from the same sites over and over I would understand harsher measures but to perma ban over a simple mistake seems rather harsh.

I do think it would be helpful to maybe implement somebody (possibly an actual artist) to help with the queue with denials not only with ai art denials but with denials in general. It never hurts to have more eyes and a new perspective on things. Also it would help artists get their art on faster and feel less defeated when the denials are not detailed in manner than would help them actually fix the cw. I think that the cw denial system is flawed in so many ways, but as this discussion is mostly about ai I will not go into further detail as of yet.

The distinction we're trying to draw here is the difference between just seeing an AI image and being inspired versus actually partaking in the generating of images using the AI tool; i think most artists would agree that in your example, you would be the one generating the image, so that would be a problem in itself. If you're wondering why that would be an issue, that is more about AI as a concept, and why artists don't advocate for using it to generate things. (The issues being how AI image generators are made from stolen/scraped art without permission from artists, how it's bad for the environment due to high energy costs, among other things)

Maybe another thing to consider is how AI Image Generators actually work because it's not like cutting bits out of different photographs and putting them together in Photoshop. This is a very basic introduction on the website of the College of St Benedict, St John's University. Artificial Intelligence and Images There are links to other articles as well. The list of Image Generators in one article doesn't include DeviantArt's generator because this is fairly new.

If I was an artist and was inspired by an AI generated image how would this be different to being inspired by an image I generated myself? The image generated by someone else would still be using a generator trained on images from the internet.

At least to me, the distinction here is are we adding to the use of AI or not / are we participating in art theft or not. Generating AI images would be a "yes" to both imo, while having an already existing AI image as one of several references used for a piece would be "no" to the first for sure and I'm leaning towards "no" on the second. To answer the second question though, I think it would help to understand what kind of interaction / use of AI does or doesn't "feed" the AI system. For example, when a company buys an AI program to use to create content they're participating in art theft and are providing a drive for AI (in this form) - creating a "demand". When we see an AI image online and use it as a reference, is that in anyway creating "demand"? I'm not positive but I don't think so. In the same way, I don't think it's taking from artists to be used as a reference since it's not creating "demand" for anything. But, if we want to ban use of AI even as a reference again, I think there needs to be more ways to use resources that aren't for sure legally public domain (as references).

I'm in agreement with many of the users here such as Akita, Emyon, Dahlia, and Eivor. (&Others lol)

I have to assume most cw artists at this time are conscious of the fact AI shouldn't be used but sometimes it's impossible to tell if a piece is AI generated or not. I think some rules are just a bit too harsh for the reality of things. That is, we all know ai can be a problem and we can all try to be conscious of what images may be fabricated, however, there can be errors. We're all human and have full lives off site and things can be missed. I would hope people will not be iced or warned over accidents. People come on to be part of a cool community and destress.

I do not upload as often as I used to as cws caused a lot of stress and frustration for me previously and tbh it does sound like that is still a cause for stress for many users who are much more active than myself. I continue to see people leave over various things in relation to cws, and I'd hate to see even more go due to it becoming overly tedious and frustrating because we cannot control the unknown. The more advanced AI becomes, the less likely people will be able to spot the obvious and I think unfortunately, that is the reality.

If the restrictions become too heavy and obsessive, I can't imagine cws will continue to be profitable for the site and worth the hassle for the users. Having to provide references for things where references were not used, or for basic objects or styles, I can't imagine I'll stay active for long myself. I only just became more active in cws and commissions but reading all this and whatnot is just off-putting and I don't think I want to deal with all this lol.

May add more or edit this later this is just me on my phone rambling after reading a bunch of posts, so my bad for any grammar issues haha.

To add, I get it is probably a lot of work to scour everything that is submitted and that is appreciated for the members of staff that handle that.

I am interested in AI from the technology angle which is why I researched how AI Image Generators work. Whatever laws are put in place for generator training, care must be taken to protect human artists. It mustn't become illegal for artists learning their craft to download photos of artworks to study things like brush strokes, light and shade and other technicalities. Artists' styles can't be copyrighted at the moment so artists can use any artist's work for inspiration as long as they don't copy an actual piece of artwork or create something in the style of Fred Bloggs and then try to sell it as a genuine Fred Bloggs.

Circling back to the OP by , I think discussing other rules is also important! There's been a lot of discussion over time about the inconsistencies between rules and items on site, between rules and feedback, and vagueness of some rules leading to anxiety and defeat amongst some artists.

Some of the things I recall off the top of my head are: the use of certain words (such as copy-righted words), the use of languages other than English in names / descriptions, what is considered site "appropriate" (ex: some items not being approved because of how they could be misused but at the same time the site has official BDSM items), degrees of variation in "style" and anatomy...

I'd love to hear artists and others weigh in on what has been challenging about some of the rules and how they could be modified to alleviate some of these challenges!

I agree that the rules need better defined.

-- AI art is theft. That said I've seen creators take an AI image and turn it into a real life project numerous times on youtube. The larger channels have to be making ad revenue from them. Is not using AI as a reference an actual law the site has to follow or just personal preference?

I understand not wanting to encourage anyone to generate AI images specifically to be used as references but any image cache is now beyond bloated with the stuff. Pinterest specifically comes to mind, and I know people like to use it to make mood boards etc for commissions.

What if someone re-drew from an AI image and submitted this "original" art to a CW artist to work from? I suppose every artist should update their terms and conditions to include a big disclaimer that says if their work is denied because of suspected AI referencing they won't issue refunds etc.

-- Also curious if images from clothing websites count as public domain. I've used said images as references for commissions that were pretty much identical to the source, that were accepted on site. Going forward is this still allowed?

Heh, thank you. I woke up and chose violence today.

AI art for generative means and I do not get along, it's a huge reason why I'm exploring other avenues of employment because my graphic design degree is, unsurprisingly due to AI, useless at this moment.

I have loud, strong opinions of AI art and Subeta's zero tolerance is absolutely welcome HOWEVER, like I said, if it's a one and done freeze, that's extreme.

The site is supposed to be PG-13 but some of the official items could be considered questionable such as

[item2=Bloodlusting Love]

I found this in the rules Sexual/Graphic Content

Quote " This rule applies: Entire Site,Forums,Shoutbox. Wherever possible, do NOT forget to mark boards or site areas containing sexual or graphic content with a warning; in the forums, this warning needs to be in the thread title. (IE: "Mature content".) And remember, there ARE limits as to how much we will allow. Subeta is PG-13!"

This is a bit confusing because how much Sexual/Graphic content is considered suitable for today's 13 year olds by the entertainment industry?

I'm in the UK so I can snigger over the Fanny Pack items because of the vocabulary differences between the US and UK but the vocabulary differences have caused problems in the past. Facebook censored a Black Country history group for mentioning a traditional meatball and banned a user for saying he liked this meatball because the name of the meatball is an offensive term in the US. The offensive term can also mean a bundle of sticks and an embroidery technique.

If I was a CW artist I would be forever on edge in case I produced an item or used an item name which is perfectly innocent in the UK but offensive in the US. Players from other countries outside the US will have the same problem.

PS This is an interesting official site item. :D [item2=Feisty Heroine Ripped Bodice]

Yes that seems to be the current state of things. Tons of artists needing to pursue different avenues of work due to AI replacing them- Something that society needs to be ashamed of. ( Why use AI to replace a one of our species' only outlets of joy? Why not use AI to reduce suffering, or perform the jobs of the people who are grinding their knees into dust or being crushed to death while mining for battery components, etc )

Which is why we are asking Staff and other users their opinions on the subject. Hopefully, to possibly grant some leniency or rethink the overarching AI reference ban, which could potentially cause more harm than good, and is just another obstacle artists who are already suffering will need to overcome.

And therein my point, art is one creative outlet, near completely replaced by AI or "Oh, I can get an AI (MidJourney) to make that for nothing!" Writing is another, also nearly replaced by AI via Chat GPT. I've only seen maybe four instances of good AI use so far with AI as it stands right now (e.g. Google Pixel's Assistive Frame) and that's tenuous as best anymore.

Ah, yes, I see that now. I admit, I read the initial posts very quickly in passing this morning before some very overwhelming errands and I really shouldn't have done that but I completely agree. Banning AI reference, at this point, with the unfortunate blurred line in the sand, is an overreach by staff. When we can't readily tell, because you don't have to declare AI still for some ridiculous reason, it shouldn't be so harshly punished.

Is the alternative asking/demanding references for every single CW or piece of art on here and a blanket ban on AI as a whole, down to if we have references that used AI, not of our own doing, that we get punished for it? That's still overkill. AI struggles with certain things - blades, fingers, eyes, writing, animals, clothing folds - that I've seen in some of the AI art. Is a possible solution expanding the CW team so there's several people checking over the CWs to make sure that they're not completely AI? That sounds more feasible than annihilating one of Subeta's steady sources of income.

ahem

Anyways, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[edit]I may have unintentionally repeated myself but eh, consider it repetition for emphasis.

This was said in response to being told that using an AI image as a reference only, was a bannable offense. And as it gets harder to tell if something is AI generated, it's harder to find good art and photo references. There have been no cw submissions insofar as I know that were AI generated, which wouldn't be tolerated anyway, and reasonably so. Just to clarify what's going on a bit.

~there are other issues, collective ones, but those are not ones the group of us here want to discuss in the forums. We'd prefer discourse with you and Amber over that. And yes I mean WE. The whole group of us who've posted here, and more. We're asking for open discourse. Thanks. Akita is the one your want to connect with on this. They have the details. As always thank you for your time.

I think you misunderstood our argument here. We are not asking for staff to change the rules regarding AI generated works to be submitted as CWs. I am also vehemently against that concept. However, as a commissioner who scours on pinterest, Twitter, Instagram for inspirations and references to hand to my artists for CWs, avoiding AI is getting harder and harder to do. I'm sure many of us here would be tricked by AI generated content because the average commissioner would not be able to tell which is AI and which isn't. I understand your sentiment of commissioners shouldn't use every reference they see on the internet, but please understand, many original sources are hard to trace. Try putting the image into Google lense or image reverse search and you would still end up finding the source on Pinterest and many other sites which host reuploads.

I'm not going to sugarcoat this, but Subeta is not something I want to spend money on right now (CSC, subscriptions). I've been let down plenty of times regarding site performance issues and various glitches. I'm not going to dive too deep on those here since it will be off topic. I'm sure many who posted in this thread feel the same way. I understand Subeta is struggling financially, I can see it in the daily donation goal. As I said many many times before, if I start seeing improvements to the site, I would be incline to spend on Subeta once again. That is something for you, the site admin, to consider as well.

Welllll, at the end of the day it is a privately owned site and the owner is allowed to make whatever decisions he'd like.

So that's all I've got for now.