I know you're probably joking with the last sentence but i hope you all know we're not trying to go against staff in some kind of war, we're trying to work with you guys to find a solution in the middle ground.

As for the actual rules that are being worked on, something to think about: if someone has submitted a CW which had an AI as a reference, and it gets denied, what happens to that artwork? Does the artist need to start it from scratch, just edit it using new references, or would changing just the references in the submission suffice? There are a lot of hypotheticals at work here, i know, but this why people are nervous about the rules.

(also wanted to say, there were more than just the AI thoughts in the first few posts, even though this thread kinda devolved into the AI discussion, that would be nice to be considered as well when you guys come out with the rules, mainly the other reference usage stuff)

It was not my intention at all to ask you to give up on your stance - but as I had stated, simply to ask that this rule be revisited and discussed further, so users know what to expect when submitting a CW!

What would be helpful is to know any guidelines you set out, especially considering the diversity of age ranges on this site, and different levels of familiarity with AI. Ex. what do you look for to determine if art is AI or not? Any set of standards in detail would help to clear the air, and can also help users and artists to provide further feedback, unless that is not open for discussion.

And that, as it is right now, a simple rule of "AI [is not] allowed", is too broad to be enforced fairly.

(Personally, however, I absolutely agree with Akita, Star, Hades, Emyon, and users who feel similarly.)

I appreciate that you're willing to loosen rules and work on clarifying! I think hearing what the artists are struggling with and all the reasons the AI rules impact them is helpful. I know as a non-artist there are a lot of pieces of the CW process that didn't cross my mind until I chatted with folks!

I think it may be helpful to scoop up what has come from the conversation so far and start a loose "sketch" of what a "best fit" rule could look like atm (with an understanding too that AI is a new beast and the site may need to collect some feedback overtime and continue to tweak things!).

Here's my suggestion (which has issues!):

"Each individual in the process of creating a CW has the responsibility to share the labor of keeping Subeta a safe environment that honors artists and maintains artistic integrity by preventing the use of AI generated materials.

We ask that community members who commission custom wearables and custom items for site use do their due diligence to avoid sending artists AI generated materials to be used as references. This may include tracking the reference back to an original source, using a reverse google image search or something akin to google lens, examining images carefully for "tells" of AI, and even potentially running images through "is it AI" sites for guidance. Here (include several links) are some resources on identifying AI generated materials.

Artists submitting CWs and CIs are required to provide links to references and to do their do diligence to avoid AI generated materials. Artists are not expected to utilize "is it AI" type sites, but may choose to do so. If a piece cannot be sourced in a way that confirms it is not AI generated, we ask that artists do their best to locate alternative references / ask commissioners for alternative references. If a reference cannot be linked in a manner that proves it is not AI generated, the artist can choose to include it in the references with at least three notes on why they think it is not AI generated but with the understanding that staff may challenge this and it could result in denial or needs for alterations from new references.

If a piece is submitted and the reviewing member feels a reference is AI generated, but the artist has provided the above, the staff member may choose to run the piece through several AI testing sites. If the sites return a consensus of 50% or more likelihood that the piece is AI generated and information countering this cannot be given by the artist, the reference will need to be removed, a new reference will need to be found, and the piece will need to be resubmitted - potentially with alterations. Staff members are asked to always give the benefit of the doubt to artists and to handle each instance as individual.

Because of the challenges of ever-improving AI programs, there is currently a X% rule regarding AI generated reference submissions and warnings. If X% or more of submitted references within a X month time frame are determined to be AI generated, a warning will be given. Assigned reviewers have the option to choose to NOT count an instance towards this percentage if they feel all due diligence was taken.

The Weak Spots If a piece is inspired in part by an AI generated piece, there may be issues with the ability to exchange references, make alterations, and resubmit. For example, if it's something like a background and the design of the bench in the image is what took inspiration from the AI materials the artist may be able to change the bench. But if it's something like a bird, drawing inspiration from these four resources one two three four to make a single image of a bird that's perched on the HA's arm it seems unrealistic that the artist could make a small edit to "eliminate" any inspo from the pieces that turned out to be AI. (I also didn't confirm the non-AI stuff was public domain).

The questions still not addressed then would be, when we're talking re-submission vs asking artists to scrap the whole project (which costs them) can we include that if the artist did their due diligence (according to the rule) that they can resubmit with slight alteration (ex on the bird, maybe a change of tail length or color that pulls from a replacement reference) and will be approved (given that any other issues not related to the AI thing are resolved)? The concern here is if they miss something, and the piece gets denied, that they would have to re-do from scratch which is costly and with the prevalence and advancements of AI materials it's a valid concern. If this kind of situation would result in them having to start from zero, the rule ends up protecting folks off-site more than the on-site artists.

Also, in trying to "share the load" of the labor that is added by AI, how do we ensure that the rule reflects this? For example, if a commissioner doesn't do their part and then the artist believes the piece isn't AI generated and submits it as a reference and it gets denied, if the artist gets punished for this then the labor isn't actually shared in practice.

That's all I can think of for now! Hoping thoughtful feedback from others with insight can help shape things further!

and made excellent points above (as have other folks on this board so far).

This is painfully untrue. We can block the big players (OpenAI, Amazon, Google and now Apple) through various methods that in turn block legitimate use. We can use methods like robots.txt to block AI crawlers that adhere to those rules, and then we can spend an additional couple hundred dollars a month on traffic analyzers to ensure that bad actors, who don't adhere to those rules, aren't getting through. All together the effort to 'stop it from being scraped' is weeks of my time, a monthly fee and hoping and praying apple/google/openAI don't change their rules tomorrow.

This is where things have got horribly confusing since AI image generators appeared. There is a big difference between the definition of stealing in relation to image generator training and what the comic book artist Jack Kirby meant when he used the word steal.

I am waiting to see the verdict for Stability AI being sued but the case is dragging on.

Going on to other things which don't relate to what Keith said. I think image generators are going to have a bad effect on graphic designers. If I started a small business and wanted a logo I'd have a choice of websites where I could generate one with AI and it wouldn't cost me anything. I would still be a human using a tool, though, unlike this interesting development.

Painting by AI robot Ai-Da could fetch more than $120,000 at auction (article dated Thu October 24, 2024 )

quote " Sotheby’s will sell its first work credited to a humanoid robot using artificial intelligence (AI) later this month. “A.I. God. Portrait of Alan Turing (2024)” was created by Ai-Da Robot, the artist robot and brainchild of British gallerist Aidan Meller.

Meller told CNN’s Anna Stewart that Ai-Da’s art highlights society’s relationship to technology and underscores a long tradition of art mirroring societal change. "

Anyway, going on to CWs. Maybe the Subeta staff could get together and draw up a list of exactly what kind of images can be used for references and where CW makers and CW commissioners can find them. I think players would be less anxious if there was guidance like this.

There is no war in Ba Sing Se Subeta I literally have nothing to add to any of this topic, other than yeah, changing the rules to where it warns a first time offense for someone caught using AI, that's reasonable. Repeat behavior though, yeah, ban them.

As someone who has submitted CWs that I have personally drawn, and will in the future, I think the site's rules are fair considering Keith and Jessi's very reasonable willingness to loosen the strict ban, which I think they've said multiple times on this thread and the CW queue thread that Jessi is running. It's important to acknowledge that this tech will keep growing and be impossible to have strict awareness of. It's also important to acknowledge this site is small, needs to protect itself from copyright issues. And, it is important to protect human artists. Discouragement of AI references is more than reasonable and I hope it continues, because otherwise it's just a fact that people will begin to generate AI reference for their work here. If we don't press against AI it will press inwards, that's just the nature of it. I don't want to see AI-created works when I am in artist communities online, I want to see work that people made. This is going to be a weird, grey-area, blurred lines situation perhaps forever, but I have a huge amount of respect for Subeta's staff sticking so hard on protecting this tiny community from AI.

There is a loooooot that's been said on this thread that I just do not understand. A lot of words have been typed that I feel don't say anything with clarity or purpose and I hope this specific collective of CW artists can communicate with the staff with better understanding and not too much drama going forward, because this thread was a MESS to read. Also remember that there are some of us who participate in the CW process without being part of this major clique and you all aren't representatives of every user who uses the system.

Thank you for adding your voice and perspective to the conversation! If there's anything I've said that you felt had no clarity and purpose, or included drama please feel free to quote those areas directly so I can clarify for any / all participating.

Thank you so much for the clarification! Truly. And thank you for being invested in this issue both on and off site. I hope this board has been able to provide some constructive communication that will help Subeta as a site and community <3

Your posts have been extremely helpful as I read the thread and I appreciate them very much. If I had to pare down this thread to bullet points, reading your replies would help a lot. I also agree that open discussion is really important and I'm glad we can all chime in here. I get the feeling a big group of people made some coordinated effort "behind the scenes" before posting here and it seems like it will continue out of public eye, and that's left me feeling like I'm missing information. There also seems to be a level of drama that on one hand is really understandable given the subject matter, I feel very emphatically about AI myself, but that combo with the feeling of a group posting a collective opinion, and then their posts in response to Keith seeming to respond to their points and I guess some posts being edited, left me feeling like there's more that's trying to be said that I'm not understanding.

Would you say these are the points of the thread overall?

• concern over banning being an acceptable punishment for AI references being used (addressed by keith and jessi)
• suggestion that because AI references are impossible to fully monitor, it should be allowed (addressed by keith)
• wanting more staff than just Jessi on CW queue duty (addressed by keith)

Does that seem right?

Tiny point for everyone who is upset that the issues RE Pinterest inspo etc are not being addressed....that is settled case here and has been since the advent of CWs.

Pinterest posts should have a link to where they came from, if they don't you can always Google lens/reverse image. You have NEVER been allowed to use an individuals art or photos as a reference. Literally never. You can use things that are considered fair use with changes, but you were never allowed to look at someone's Photobucket or Facebook or Instagram or deviantart or whatever and just use their own personal art as a reference for your cws. I honestly do not understand why there's any question here about that. If it's public domain or you can apply fair use with changes to it (like video game/tv/magazine photos etc), it's fine. If it's someone's personal artwork or photographs you cannot use it. That has always been the rule. That hasn't changed y'all.

That makes complete sense! For total transparency in case it felt vague - yes, there are folks who chatted off site and realized they had shared questions / concerns. Some folks have additional concerns that are theirs to address, but the board was born of that chat and created with the intention of opening the discussion to other voices / bringing it to the staff for consideration (and ideally some change). I'm a big fan of open, honest (and respectful!) communication. Seems to be the most productive way to handle things c:

Summary of Points I'd say the summary of points is close, but some things did get lost!

• AI generated materials as references (clarity on rules, expectations, and repercussions and discussion of concerns about errors in judging materials)
• Other materials as references (clarity on acceptable use materials)
• CW Process, esp. Feedback (request for additional hands, discussion about why additional hands are / aren't wanted and how it could be trialed)

Where it Stands

• AI generated materials are not permitted as references, but Keith and other staff are discussing the boundaries of the rules, the process related to accidental AI references in submissions, and the repercussions for AI references.
• Regarding the other reference materials, the current guidelines related to fair use / public domain / four changes are for the most part clear but as points out below there are individual circumstances that people would like clarification on. Further discussion would be helpful!
• The queue will remain assigned to only Jessi at this time, but there is space for further discussion

Thank you for the information! As a non-artist, I did need to do some googling on public domain and fair use. It makes sense and the "four changes" rule seems to be the site-specific clarification that ensures protection.

I don't think anyone is talking about or even uses anyone else's personal art as a reference or even inspiration. All commissioners ive personally had the joy to work with know thats a boundary not to cross. But thank you for bringing that up as it's an important clarification.

We're mainly wondering what all is covered under 'fair use'. Would a pug photo from someone's public Instagram account be able to be referenced? What if it's a pug influencer? What if the pug has a costume on? Would all of that need to be judged on a case by case basis? Since words like 'ban' and 'warning' and 'war' are being thrown around it's important to make sure we have a total understanding of what is and isn't allowed.

Edit:

Editing to also add, what if the pug is on a private Instagram account? What if only the pose is referenced? ( Sitting pug with a head tilt, but a fox gets drawn. ) What if something is fair use but has an ai filter or ai touch up?

Usually when I work, if i need a ref, I often luckily don't need to or don't want to work from a singular refrence photo- it's a pain in the ass and ive been drawing animals for so long im pretty comfortable with certain poses and anatomy. If i need a reference- I'll search 'pug' in google images, get the general idea of the animal after looking over the collection of images on the first page and work from that. I've often linked a screenshot of the Google images search page with over a dozen images on it as a 'ref'. Will working from this type of collage ( where no single photo is used, but the gist/inspiration is taken from every photo sort of. ) not be allowed going forward if there is an ai image on the page?

No problem!

No, someone's personal photo of their pug from Instagram is not allowed. You can Google pug photo and pull inspiration references from dog websites but you cannot use someone's personal art (clothes they made, photos of their pets/life/house/builds/etc, drawings they made whether digital or traditional, sculptures etc etc). If a private individual made it, you can't use it. That has been the rule all along.

Also Keith clarified war was in regards to tech companies not users. People have always gotten warnings and/or bans for using someone else's personal art. Generally if it is suspect, Jessi has opened tickets to users in the past and asked for their references as well as their uncompressed files to prove they did the art and didn't trace. It's not as complicated as y'all are making it. Very few people have been banned for art theft and/or tracing. All of this was just reiterated as a reminder alongside the firm rule that AI cannot be used.

[Edit] To respond to your edit, if the reference is on a private Instagram that's even more indication you shouldn't use it find another reference. You can find a million foxes with heads tilted references that are fair use and/or public domain. And as far as I'm aware you're supposed to cite your specific references, so grab the fair use photos you actually used in specific as your reference, not a screenshot of a page of Google results. The what ifs are getting a bit out there. Also find the original reference if something has had ai touchups or filters applied because ai isn't allowed and also that then is not the original piece so you don't know if it was stolen or not.

I've tried reading articles by lawers about copyright but they are eye wateringly complex. I did learn a few things, though. Copyright laws were made before the invention of the internet so they can vary between countries. For example, there are differences between the US and the European Union definitions of what counts as 'fair use'. Not all Subeta members are in the US so the rules have to consider this.

My suggestion. Subeta is based in the US so the rules about 'fair use' should go by the US definition.

I got one more thing, how about youtube stills for poses? Reffable or not?

Hate to ping just one person since I'm not trying to be bothersome. Anyone is welcome to give their opinion.

Oop actually I'll go ahead and ping you, hope you don't mind. Pokemon aren't allowed to be drawn, due to copyright, however we can make 4 changes to the pokemon design and upload that as a tribute item. How is the fox drawn in the pose of the pug on the Instagram account ( as that is easily over 4 changes made. ) not allowed if the pokemon tribute is?

Edit: If I'm bothering you with pings please tell me! You don't owe me a reply.

You're not bothering me at all! For Pokemon it has to do with fair use in the US and that's why changes must be applied but it is allowed. For things you find on someone's personal art accounts, it isn't considered fair use because there's no intent or estimation that these things are for general public consumption. If I post a picture of my partner and I in costume to my Instagram, my intent is that it's going to stay in my circle and I don't expect that random people might see it and make art to profit on from it. It's not being published in a magazine or a professional site or part of the greater public scope. It's a lot more actually complicated but somewhere on here there is an explanation for why we don't use private individuals things vs why use of corporate things with changes is allowed. I'm just at work and can't go hunting for clarification posts from the past right now lol

Copyright and intellectual property law is a deep deep swamp. There are so many different terms like public domain, fair use, free to use, etc. that get tossed around in these discussions when a lot of the concepts and their application can be fairly complex. Especially when we're are talking about art here- and specifically illustration - that itself is already a transformative process. Using references to both get inspired and to help with form and details of the piece have always been part of process of creating art. I don't think anyone here wants to duplicate anyone's copyrighted work but there's a very big difference in seeing a picture on Google image search and being inspired to create something original from that starting point (often using other reference materials too) and copying someone else's work.

Since fair use gets tossed around so much we're are clearly allowed to use some copyrighted material as references for CWs but when does fair use apply and when does it not? As far as I know there is no "fair use" tag for images. I've definitely seen "free to use" and "creative commons" but neither of these tags automatically means that the work in question is copyright free and they often come with some caveats their use like including a credit to the original artist Do we need to include credit in the item description in cases like this since submission notes are not visible to everyone. Another limitation I often see for these "free to use" materials is that they are free for non-commericial use only. Shouldn't this automatically discredit these works as a reference for CWs since there is a transaction involved? Can they only be used for works that are paid with CSC or if Subeta can make money on the CW is it still considered commerical use? Fair use is not some magic thing that automatically protects any work. The copyright holder is still allowed to disagree with the application of fair use and sue anyway. There really isn't a one size fits all approach to fair use.

A lot, if not most of the these materials listed as free to use (or other similar tag) still fall under copyright and thus are not in the public domain. Public domain is strictly for works that do not fall under copyright due to their copyright having expired or having been relinqished, or due to not being protected by copyright in the first place. Unfortunately it's often specifically these public domain resources that are being taken over by AI materials because AI is inherently not protected by the copyright.

The other point brought up multiple times is the use of personal art as references. Where is the line for what is considered personal work and what is not. Artists can sell photos and photosets on their personal platforms to be used as references. Is a photo like this disallowed because it was posted on a personal platform or does the submitter and/or artist need to provide proof of purchase during submission to prove that they have acquired the proper licence for the use? What if an artist has said that their works can be used as inspiration to create other artwork?

Continueing with the pug photo example from before: A photographer posts a picture of an pug on their Instragram. This photo is then not allowed to be used as a reference for a CW. A pug website acquires a license from the photographer to use the same photo on their website. I find this picture posted on the pug website through image search. I still do not have the license for this photo but because I found it on a website that could be considered not to be "personal" it's now okay to use it as a reference? What about marketplaces? Are Etsy listings considered personal work? How does that differ from the photos in the product listings on other market places like Amazon, Shein or H&M?

We're artists here. We want to create art. How deep into the weeds do we need to go for references for transformative artwork. What is the level of diligence expected from artists, commissioners AND quality control? I understand wanting to be safe with copyright stuff to not get sued but the current policy is not clear enough nor do I find it to be very clear cut from the point of view of law since the judgement to disallow some materials while allowing others seems more like a moral stance than a legal one in some cases.

Thanks for everyone who has participated in this conversation and thanks to staff for being receptive to the thread! I may not be the paragon of activity right now but having been here for as long as I have Subeta is still a very dear place to me and I'd love to see the art community here thrive.

What is stopping people from simply asking if they feel like their reference situation is especially complex? If we can acknowledge the swampy legality of concepts like copyright and fair use, why can't it be part of the rules to ask if you're not sure? Like using a random pug photo to draw a fox. If you're only looking at a dog picture to check a specific part of anatomy at a specific angle for a completely different creature, do you need to be listing that picture as a reference? In this hypothetical, it seems like you'd be able to tell if a) this photo is so different from your final work that it's not relevant or b) your final piece is using this specific image to base your work on and you need to list it. And if you KNOW you need to directly emulate a specific reference, can't you only search in stock images or other items that are free to use, instead of just generally online?

If there really are instances like the last few examples happening, are there too harsh of consequences for being uncertain/asking, and that's why you guys are feeling uncertain with this rule? Some of these questions seem like they are complex for the sake of a hypothetical, but staff is already looking at every single CW on a case by case basis, and they don't seem like they intend to harshly police all these small instances.

Edit. This is in the CW FAQ, emphasis by me:

So like, getting the angle on your HA companion fox just right by looking at a picture of someone's pug is probably not going to make someone go after Subeta for copyright infringement and probably doesn't even fall under what staff is calling "reference" because you're not making an item that is based on that person's pug in that pic. But if you KNOW you're going to use a reference, pick one that isn't in a weird gray area instead of just googling. And if you're unsure, open a ticket?

points at your whole post Yes.

Every time I start to think I understand all of this there are new terms I come across, or new examples, or new questions. It's very complex and I think your post is such a great breakdown of why this conversation is so important. When there are consequences like warnings or banning in play / when this is how some folks pay bills it's incredibly important for expectations to be as clear as possible and for the rules to be consistently applied / enforced.

I'm super appreciative of committing to a more flexible and less intense approach as these things are navigated; the concern certainly remains that without clarity and solid reasoning to helps artists make decisions, there is still the risk of having their integrity questioned or of being punished for struggling to understand how the different rules and laws apply to different potential references or how to identify advanced AI.

I don't think there is any malice in the rules! Sounds like they were written with the intent of upholding artistic integrity and protecting all artists, and I deeply respect that. I also think there's a lot of validity in the questions that have come from the way some of these rules, laws, and terms have melded with the current process to create hiccups or challenges.

ohhh! I think the question of "what makes a reference" is a good one! How relevant to the final image does something need to be to "have to" be listed as a reference? How similar do elements need to be (ex: the pose, the shape, the layout) to the reference pieces for them to need to be listed? When is it okay to not include a reference?

My understanding is, while some of the questions may seem like a reach, many are coming from real life experiences that have resulted in confusion, frustration, or hurt and have led to some apprehension.

In addition, given how many questions have come up, to implement a "if you're not sure submit a ticket" without also adding clarity to things would probably result in having a tooooon more work on their plate.

I see what is saying and while I agree with some parts, the one point I do not entirely agree with is submitting individual tickets for clarity when there's a public discussion where we can all get answers together. With so many people having similar questions and concerns, it would seem a little overboard to flood the ticket system and with one person handling CWs; it would become old and overwhelming for said person very quickly. To me, it best be out in the open where we can all learn together. Also worth noting that this is all stuff that's going to be discussed further amongst staff I'm sure if anything, this is preventing a massive backlog of tickets and questions. Thank you to all the people who are better clarifying the rules though, it's helped a lot on my end especially because English is not my first language. c: