Part of the merits of asking that type of question here is to not swamp the ticket system with those hypotheticals, and also that clarifying a question in public helps other people not have to ask that exact same question a million other times. I have in the past tried asking about a submission being ok in concept (many years ago) before actually submitting and been asked not to do so in the past, because "pre-approval" was not allowed, so there is also that factor. I understood that also being so that the tickets aren't filled with questions of this nature as well, which would make sense. If that has changed now, I'm unaware

Thanks to the various people who have kept this from becoming a free for all, we as a group, decided to come forward with all this. The intent is definitely not drama. and...not a clique. We kind of look at it more like a Union. WE felt that a group of voices would go over better than a single, or a couple of users asking these questions. Thanks for everyone's time, for real. I hope we can come to some kind of agreements over sticky issues.

Subeta has official artists so perhaps they could explain where they get their inspiration and references from. We can also take a look at official items on the site to see what has been permitted. The Delphi Art museum has some interesting items. The Bloodcurdling Scream was obviously inspired by Edvard Munch's The Scream. The Bridge Again was inspired by Monet's The Bridge. The Awash, Among, Afloat print looks like it was inspired by Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa.

Then there are tribute items such as the Spacetime Blue Box which is a collection of Doctor Who inspired items. Where did the artist who created this collection find references and how much had to be changed so as not to fall foul of copyright? There are also the rag dolls.

If I wanted to commission a backdrop could I supply a photo of a scene that I took myself? Would it have to be the straight off the camera version or the version which was heavily edited in Paint Shop Pro using plugins I bought to give an artistic effect?

It's very confusing having a list of things we can't do. I'm just thinking it would be easier if we had a list of things we can do by following what the official Subeta artists provide as guidance.

I just wanted to jump in real quick and also say I agree with Emyon

and also Faune here:

We're not trying to overload this thread with hypotheticals, but there are people that make and submit a large amount of CWs. I'm sure I've looked at thousands of photos in search of references over the years, and every 'hypothetical' situation I've asked about....has definitely happened already or will happen at some point. If not to me, then to someone else. If we don't have the most possible clarity up front as to what isn't and is allowed to be used, then there's a chance a lot of people's time, effort, and money will be wasted.

Case in point being, I recently thought non-violent gun items were allowed on site due to the huge number of gun items that are currently already on site- both CW and actual site items. It never would have occurred to me, ever, that a non-violent gun item wouldn't be allowed on a PG-13 site that allows these: . So I drew up this item, sold it, and it was denied ( The buyer got a full refund. ) because I was not clear on the rules....because the rules seemed to say otherwise. Nowhere on the CW submission page does it say anything about guns. To be clear, I'm not mentioning this case to try to argue with the ruling. I'm mentioning this case to show why we're asking all of these questions in advance and trying to pursue clarity, so that cases like the aforementioned or similar do not happen on a wider scale. :)

I agree 100 percent. I want to add ..more clarification we have on appropriate resources (like approved websites) and how much we pull from a reference (s) (like if it's 10 percent similar do we have to list it because an artist I can tell you one peice can have tons of references from fabric folds,color,texture,etc so do we list every single thing) in my understanding more clarification more confidence we can have moving forward.

Every Cw artist wants to be authentic and transparent with clarity. And because there are alot of specifications and vagueness we all came together and said "i don't know do you know?" And realized this needs to be discussed. Important for us ,maybe not to others. That's okay. This is why this tread is on this part of the forums.

I want to be productive on here so subeta can earn more money but as of now until these needs are addressed I'm waiting..because lot of time goes into creating cw art and I support my friends who make and release cw art. I'm very thankful for the blessing to discuss because once we do have answers I think the community will improve which means more cw art,more income for this site.

Overall..I have mad respect for staff and cw artists/releasers. And of course the peeps who buy our custom works. It's really a matter of satisfaction to create art for subeta freelance. I really hope for positive changes going forward.

I just want to point out, Jessi has said this on the CW faq thread just a few days ago. I also get that it's a huge job for one person, but like basically every Subeta suggestions thread it feels like a pipedream that we will get anything close to a full team working on any one part of the site. We have to work with what we have, right?

Rules clarifications would be great and it seems like most issues on this thread could be helped with some rules clarification updates. I do still think this thread is a huuuuge wall of text basically asking for rules clarifications on a few specific things. The gun example is different than anything said in the OP (AI references, public domain refrences, CW staff size), but if there are a lot of instances like these would it be better to make a clear and concise list of the rules that need clarifying? Kudos to Jessi and Keith who are going thru this and figuring out exactly what to address. And I say that as someone who thinks the CW rules and FAQ pages could use an update for clarity and user-friendliness in general.

Sorry if I seem nitpicky, taking the time to read through this whole thread was just a huge slog. The further in we get the more specific examples pop up, which seem different than the OP points. It's just hard to give feedback and contribute to the discussion when it seems so meandering.

Yep a bit of clarification to the rules overall would be helpful too.

The instance I gave was to show why extra thoroughness in our questioning isn't us trying to be a pain in the butt, meandering, or hypothetical for the sake of being a pain - we're actually trying to gain some clarity about what is allowed and what isn't, because denials do happen when we aren't given complete information. We're trying to ask all of the right questions to avoid all that. :)

this topic is already really well discussed, and while i am not currently able to draw CWs either as comms or to submit myself: i really, truly, completely disagree morally & ethically with people giving AI art to artists to use as a reference. for CWs or for other art.

i would personally not accept the comm if it came my way, much the same way i would decline one that used someone else (other than the commissioner's) character or artwork as a reference to create a new or 'knockoff' character or image for them. is it ethical to 'knockoff' something AI made? on a surface level, you aren't taking art from a singular person, so it feels like no, right?-- however, i still don't think it is ethical, because it has unethically scraped everything to make it's own knockoff, first. the two wrongs do not make a right to me. the AI art is already stolen art in essence, and using said stolen art to make Better, Real Art doesn't justify it to me, personally. i am sure legally this is a different story, however what is legal is not always what is ethical.

to expand on the above also, i think that using AI art, even to make "real" art and pay a real artist, still supports the image scraping, stealing, the massive energy waste, the entire AI generation process. certainly there are times when someone does not know an image is created via genAI, and that should without question be a forgivable mistake! however, i do not think it's viable to a) not keep yourself (anyone reading, not anyone singled out!) up to date with how to recognize genAI and b) not know what websites specifically host AI images, especially for people who are vehemently against it... at some point, you have to take accountability for not knowing it was AI time and time again. if you go to the store for oranges and keep bringing back grapefruit at some point you have to figure out how to identify citrus. this is kind of a bad analogy.

i could derail this post to explain a lot of ways on how to still reliably recognize AI in its current iteration, but i'm going to spare everyone the many paragraphs unless it is asked for because i caught myself going on a really really long tangent.

all of that being said, i don't think CW artists should be punished for being given an AI ref and using it to make art, especially if they are unaware of the fact. that should be on the person who commissioned the artwork and submitted it, because at the end of the day it is unfortunate but: people lie! if someone wanted to, they could just lie to the artist about the image source! and an artist shouldn't be punished for that & for not knowing.

anyway. tl;dr yeah i don't think anyone should be using AI as refs but i do think the punishments should possibly be readdressed if it is a first-offense freezing. that seems kinda steep. otherwise i agree with staff on this one almost completely.

i also think that we need to as artists and MAYBE? staff? (i say this because i have no clue what kind of art background people have on staff but i do know that as users we are largely hobbyists and not professional artists) better educate ourselves on what is an ethical level of referencing an image vs what images can actually be used as references. this has been a problem in CWs for a long time however, like i think since inception people were just drawing 1:1 handmade things off of etsy and thinking that was fine.

[edit]adding this just bc i want to walk away with peace of mind: i do not think anyone in this thread specifically is unethical as a person, even if they partake in the above. this is just how i personally, as an artist, feel about the AI situation + about the ethicality of using AI images. i don't think this post should sound like i said that. but. i am not great at talking. thank u.

edit i wanted to clarify i can't draw and submit cws due to im currently too physically disabled to draw :') i follow the laws of the land i do not have a ban, that would be funny though if i wrote this impassioned post and im in jail about cws BUT that is not the case and for vain reasons such as i am a good boy i wanted to clear that up. thank u 2.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your stance on the "ethical people / ethics of AI" part. I always appreciate when someone errs on the side of kindness and tries to look at their own words through the perspectives of others. <3

One thing I learned as a non-artist speaking to CW creators and other artists is just how difficult it can be to avoid any AI in referencing, and how tricky it can be to follow vague rules when it comes to providing references. The laws regarding copyrighted, public domain, free use, etc are a lot more complicated that I thought! And trying to navigate what is and isn't an acceptable reference, and how much work has to be done to prove certain requirements (and what are those requirements), and how much inspiration from a source means it counts as a reference or not, and how this is or isn't impacted by the 4 changes rule ... it's almost a paralyzing amount of "wait, what are the rules?". On top of this, some folks have had some more punitive feedback in the past and have gotten mixed messages over time about how to ask clarifying questions or make changes. So understandably folks are hesitant. Until I was walked through a lot of the first-person experience by artists, I had zero understanding of why any of this was challenging! I think because of that, including the perspectives of artists (ideally with varied opinions / experiences) in clearing up and solidifying rules / feedback is the best option and hopefully that happens!

AI art is here to stay. It would be amazing if it didn't, but we have to adapt to this new reality. And it will only get worse for artists in following years so wmajor ators do have to fight tooth and nail with all their might to stop it.

While I agree with no AI-generated CWs, or overlays, I think it would be close to impossible to enforce a "No AI-reference" rule with the staff we have.

There are artists whose art have been fed so much to AI models that most people would claim that the human artist's art is actually AI, through no fault of their own!

YEAH, it unfortunately gets A LOT more complicated when money gets involved :/ For personal use & studies, it's almost always a non-issue to paint or draw based on a photograph to do a study and learn about shape and light and structure, which is great great great practice. but then as soon as it gets monetized in any way (prints, indirectly via CSC sales) it gets really murky and unfair to the original photographer. plus in this scenario, it puts all the burden of legality on subeta for hosting the artwork and getting CSC profits adjacent to it, which is why the rules have to be so strong i would imagine, because a site at the scale of subeta could simply not afford nor survive a lawsuit. it's why (imo) subeta's CWs are a real one in a million type of deal among sites because it takes on a real and big risk of financial ruin if your userbase isn't submitting original art. the rules HAVE to be strict for the sake of the site's survival, period. i can't say for certain, but i think there's been some misunderstanding about the rules being antagonistic and strict rather than the fact being that they have to cater to what is horrible USAmerican copyright law, which in its current state is. not good and getting worse, depending on what ends up getting thru congress.

there's also, i don't think, an easy way to gauge what a percentage of "reference" is used, but i feel like it's being a bit worried overmuch. not without reason. but i think clarification from staff that is in the works will help a lot. i don't. even want to think about how difficult that conversation and ironing out the details is going to be...it is complicated big time.

There's one very good reason to be wary of using AI generated images for reference where real money is concerned. Stability AI (Stable Diffusion) and OpenAI (Dall-E) are being sued for data scraping. If the judgement goes against them it's going to cause problems with all models of AI image generators that have been trained by data scraping.

It's so complicated! omg o.o Thank you both for adding educational and thoughtful points!

When it comes to US law, when artists submit original artwork if they sign something essentially saying "I verify that this is original artwork" would that legally cover the site? (Asking in case either of you know off the top of your head, if not I'll google and try to find out!).

I would hope that the four changes rule, especially if the changes have to be significant, would mean there was enough difference between any reference or inspiration piece (for tribute stuff) that the site would be protected legally. But it's certainly hard to know, and tbh the laws in the US aren't enforced the same across the board which makes it all the more confusing.

All in all the CW system seems to have worked really well and brings something special to the site so I hope it continues! I think some clarification will help artists and staff, and maybe will even help solidify safety for the site!

It's hideously complicated because copyright laws differ between countries. The UK fair dealings law differs in some respects to the US fair use law.

I'm in the UK. If I supplied a reference image for a CW maker would it have to be according to the UK fair dealings law or the US fair use law because the resulting item will be sold on a US site?

I very much agree with Vars and I feel like on principle of resisting this tech's use of art theft, we should push back against allowing AI references. We can't stop AI from existing, but we can take even some small measures to discourage its use in our art community. I'm imagining a version of the CW rules where it isn't allowed, but won't result in strict (or even any) disciplinary action, just a rejection of the CW. I also expect this is something that will have to continue to change as time goes on.

Just to add to the confusion. AI generated images cannot be copyrighted in the US. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/24/an-old-master-no-its-an-image-ai-just-knocked-up-and-it-cant-be-copyrighted However, it is far more complicated in the UK. https://strachanip.co.uk/copyright-in-ai-generated-artwork/

Even if the legal ruling for the Stability AI and OpenAI court cases is that AI generator training comes under US fair use laws it would still be safer not to use such images for reference because it mightn't be classed as other countries' equivalents of fair use.

PS Meanwhile in China https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/02/beijing-internet-court-grants-copyright-to-ai-generated-image-for-the-first-time/ Wolters Kluwer is a Dutch information services company

i want to say that the reference items we get officially is because....I guess if someone did bitch about it, then Keith can protect his employees. Whereas with the CWs, it's not as clear cut?

This article on the Hollywod Reporter website is dated 13th August

Artists Score Major Win in Copyright Case Against AI Art Generators

quote from article "The lawsuit, filed last year, revolves around the LAION data set, which was built using 5 billion images that were allegedly scraped from the internet and utilized by Stability and Runway to create Stable Diffusion. It implicated Midjourney, which trained its AI system using the model, as well as DeviantArt for using the model in DreamUp, an image generation tool. "

I have no idea what is happening in the lawsuit against Open AI and DALL-E. It could be very interesting, though, because Microsoft Designer uses the DALL-E 3 model.