Hello! Akita here, one of the many CW artists on site! I, and about 20 others, wanted to get a thread going to open a discussion about the current CW system. I think we’re going to try to touch on a few different topics in this thread and would love to hear feedback, ideas, and suggestions!

I just wanted to preface this post by saying how much we appreciate the work subeta staff does to keep the site alive and to keep subeta a safe space for everyone ( including us fringe, lgbtq, minority, and artsy groups! ). Subeta’s overall culture has usually never failed to be on the ethical and accepting side of things, that all users benefit from and appreciate! And staff do an excellent job of ensuring it stays so accepting, and protecting the users, and all of us artists!, on site- Including by prohibiting the use of AI “art” on subeta.

A recent example of this is the ban of AI “art” as reference for CW creation. Obviously, it’s needless to say that using AI to generate a CW would be unethical and hurt the artists it would replace. This brings us to our first topic of discussion! We do wonder if in the quest to protect artists, that the overarching ban on AI ( that would prevent using AI as a reference or inspiration to create real art ), would be doing more harm to real artists than what it would prevent.

Now we do support the total and absolute ban on using AI simulators to generate an actual rendering, and trying to submit that as an item. But, for example, is it unethical for someone to draw inspiration from a pre-made/found AI rendering, and then bring this rendering to an actual artist, and then paying the artist to create actual ethical art based off of the unethical AI rendering?

Is it so unethical that it must be a ban-able offence? As noted here

As is, the way we see it, this seems to just be punishing artists and not AI users, and we believe Subeta’s goal is the opposite.

Our belief is that an AI generated rendering ( I am refusing to call it Art, as it is not art. ) shouldn’t be treated differently than any other type of picture reference. As pervasive as it is, AI is currently impossible to dodge, very often indistinguishable from the real thing, and the presence of AI is only going to get stronger as the technology driving it develops. With the current total, overarching ban, AI is given even more protections than actual photographs and art, as inspiration can not even be drawn from an AI rendering.

Which brings me to my next point of discussion! In a recent post, it was mentioned that only public domain photographs can be submitted and used as references. We’d like to hear more on why this decision was made, or a little bit of clarification, if possible! As, if AI references are also being banned, it does close the door on the use of an enormous amount of good references artists would potentially be able to refer to for anatomy, how to render a texture, shading, color theory, what type of emphasis works for certain settings, and more. Now, we aren’t talking about tracing, or copying! We’re talking about looking at a photo of an item, or a scene, or an animal, and referencing a certain aspect of that parts of that photo to make a brand new, completely unique piece of art- as creating the art in itself is a transformative process, and the end product is something that’s completely unique from the original photo. To our understanding this is legal and what even major artists do.
Would it be possible to get a bit more clarification on what is and isn't allowed?

And this brings me to my third and final topic! I want to thank our current CW quality control officer, Jessi, for all of the hard work ( and headache, I’m sure! ) that goes into handling the queue, and the entirety of the CW scene ( which dare I say is one of the backbones of Subeta ), and making decisions that protect Subeta and it’s art community!

In the time they have been our quality control department, they have had to work through illness, the illness of loved ones ( Cairo has been on our minds and hearts on more than one occasion! ), and more! And on a personal note, as a manager myself, I know how difficult it can be handling and helping a variety of different personalities.

This is a huge amount of pressure for one person, as it’s a monumental undertaking, and it makes us wonder if a CW team ( like the CW council? ) would alleviate some of this pressure ( and stress )? A CW team, or maybe even a helper, to bounce ideas off of potentially, or to help look over CWs when Jessi is busy, and/or to help with CW-related tickets. I know a team would definitely help any fuss people may have with the current CW authority, as a team could approach people with a less-personal, joint approach ‘We’ve put our heads together and both agree that x is problematic/needs fixing’ versus the more personal, ‘I find this problematic’ approach, that some people currently may feel is targeting.

On the other hand, a united effort might also give the CW QC figure/s a less stressful environment to work under, as I know any single person who has to be in the position to pass judgement on or critique people’s work will eventually be seen in a certain light. ( And again, for this we thank you for stepping up to the plate and working for us, even when that is a very real possibility. ) - A team would help prevent singling out/targeting/personal blame coming from the other side as well!

In closing, we’d just like to hear what everyone else thinks about the AI ban, their thoughts on other references, and the possibility of allowing the CW authority to have some help, possibly from the community.

Thank you staff for allowing us access to outlets like the forums, and allowing us to be able to have this kind of discussion navigating and exploring these difficult topics, in a civil manner without the fear of backlash.

And again, thank you staff, for keeping Subeta a safe, progressive space for it’s users.

Also, we encourage people to chime in with their own opinions! This is an open discussion and we’d like for everyone’s ideas to be seen. But please, keep this thread civil. I’m not staff but would hate to see any inflammatory or inciting words, targeting, name calling, or bullying. Thank you!

I agree. I mean obviously using ai art onsite would be bad. But what if someone saw something and was inspired by it? For example, if someone saw that ridiculous “picture” floating around on Facebook of the little girl holding the dog during the hurricane, and thought, oh I want to do a sad avatar holding a dog…would that not be okay?

Obviously I’m not an artist, but I do like to commission pieces.

I'd like to express support for the discussion here because i was also uneasy when reading the recent posts in the FAQ, regarding the usage of references.

Firstly about the photo references, the distinction given on the post was "this isn't saying you can't use say, a random photo of a lion to help with lion anatomy. That's fine. If you draw the lion in the exact same position with the exact same scenery around it -- that's not okay as a CW"

As an artist, the distinction doesn't feel like a rule that is easy to follow, with a cut and dry "this much usage of a reference is ok, this much isn't", especially for people getting into the market now. In the lion example given, is referencing the anatomy ok, but not the pose? or are both of those ok so long as you don't include the scenery that is in the picture? Is the transformation of that lion into an art piece that conforms to the HA canvas + subeta style + the artist's own style enough of a change, since we're not making realistic art here?

These lines don't feel that clearly cut, and much of a reference changes when going through the eyes of an artist and the mechanics of redrawing what you see, etc. The same reference will look wildly different when used by different people, as well.

There is great need to use references if an artist is to produce anything of good quality, even if after some time they don't need to reference anymore, it's because they have done so enough times in the past that it's ingrained into their brain how a certain thing should look. I feel like the way the rule is worded now is more likely to scare people off from using references altogether (which would make their work worse and stunt their artistic growth, not to mention make for worse cw submissions).

Sort of in the same vein, my view of the first post rule against the usage of AI renderings as a reference (aka, not the usage of the pictures themselves as a replacement for art, but looking at them and being inspired to do something based on them), I also feel like the ruling is too rigid for what the end product really is.

It is entirely understandable to take a strong stance against using AI (which i 100% agree with, as an artist), but the ruling felt more like a moral stance against the concept of AI than a reasonable rule, and I don't think this matter is as black and white as presented. As mentioned, AI images are becoming so pervasive you can't search any term without getting AI results, and if you're just cursorily glancing over google or something to get the gist of a reference, more likely than not you will see a couple of AI things (and likely not even notice it, as they're getting better and better at covering the known flaws). Even adobe stock, which is sold to its users as an art resource, is filled with AI images now.

Moreover, anything can be inspiring, and even though the AI image itself is stealing style and rendering from thousands of artists, whatever it is depicting is in essence a concept. If one is inspired BY that concept and renders that idea fully with their own hands (or pays someone to do so), within their own style, following the site guidelines, I don't think that this should be punished, much less cause for a ban. Subjectively, it can be a type of reclaiming, taking something that took from artists and putting it back in the hands of an artist. Again, this is just my view on the subject, but I wanted to put it out there for the sake of the discussion.

(In fact, there are numerous movements of artists for example on twitter that, as a way to fight back against AI, have been using the fact that is non-copyrightable to take over what was taken from the community, drawing stuff based on those renderings, to the dismay of the people who rendered them, and you can see plenty of AI "artists" not realize the hypocrisy of being mad their "work" is being "stolen".)

On another note, the post had me wondering about how different it is to get a random art piece to use as a reference from an official reference from, say an anime/game. Would the tribute rules not apply here? If it looks different enough from the source, given the 4+ changes to designs, is that not ok to use? That was a genuine question that sparked up reading the post. What would be the reason for one thing to be ok and the other not, etc.

first of all, thanks a lot for taking the time and having the patience to address something this important for each artist and releaser. I totally agree that the new restriction about AI is hard to comply, since as you said, it's getting harder and harder to recognize what is AI and what's not. Also, I understand why it was suggested, since I think that they are trying to avoid any possible copyright issues by using only public domain pictues, but it's almost impossible to, at least once in a while, not get inspiration by a lot of stuff that's usually copyrighted. I agree that this looks like a lot of pressure, responsibility and weight for just one person, so it would be nice if a larger group of people can give a hand with feedback about the denials and the general coexistence rules.

That was greatly articulated, thanks a lot. <3

• I would like to add my 2 cents on the AI thing: I'm really against the use of AI generated images in general. But, while the majority of us artists can recognize and avoid AI generated images, lots of our commisioners don't. Maybe because they aren't chronically online, maybe because they are older, have poor vision, etc. And, yes, I know it is my duty to recognize the references but I had to admit, recently I started to need the help of other artists in order to know if the pic was AI generated or not. Not only the pool of images provided by internet are more and more AI generated: it is quickly getting harder and harder even for us to recognize the difference. I agree that submitting a CW generated by AI is a NO, but I think the use of AI as vague references should be re analized.

• About the public domain pictures: this is another very important point. Most of our commisioners see something they like on the internet, and they want it on site. Or see a bunch of different pictures on Etsy and say "Hey, can you do these wings but with these kind of feathers, and this type of chain?". The final product ends up being something completely different, something NEW created from ALL of those references. Taking away the chance to inspire ourselves (as artists and as commisioners) from many different places stales the pool of references, and will end up making that all the cw's look like just variations of one and another.

• About the public domain pictures again: it is pretty normal to see lots of new items on site inspired by, for example, the Met Gala as soon as it is celebrated. We all like to see new dresses, headpieces, shoes, and fresh ideas to incorporate to our HA's. It is fun to mix the concepts, colors and textures and, again, most of the time the final result it's pretty different from the original. Again, taking away from us, artists and releasers, this kind of inspiration is putting a very short leash on our creativity.

• About the third point: I'm all for a CW team that can aliviate the process of approval/denials, and provide clearer feedback, that will for sure will improve the queue, and the CW system in general.

I am pretty new here and obviously not an artist, but wanted to weigh in with support for the artists I have worked with.

I wholeheartedly agree that submitting an AI created piece as a submission should not happen but I think it becomes hard to make things so narrow that AI pieces cannot be used for inspiration. I think this could benefit from further clarification because it really opens a lot of other possibilities about what should/shouldn’t be allowed as reference points as well as limiting the artists’ creativity.

I also agree that there should be a clearer point for what reference material can/cannot be used. I have had issues during submissions because the guidelines are vague and it seems that a lot of others have similar issues.

Lastly — I definitely think Jessi deserves the option to gain some sort of assistance. I think the entire custom process falling on one person is a lot to ask of anyone and I was surprised to learn that only one person handles it when I submitted my first piece here on Subeta. I won’t speak for Jessi (thank you for your hard work!) but in my opinion I think an extra hand could alleviate a lot of issues that both artists and commissioners are facing along with a revamp of the rules.

I love working with such talented folks here on Subeta and I hope that this conversation can continue to provide a positive space for everyone to creatively collaborate. :)

I also have some concerns regarding the recent CW FAQ post. I agree AI generated images should not be accepted as CWs, but the question of what if an actual artist created an image from scratch based on an AI generated image? Is that not art, even if the artist put countless hours into sketching, refining and coloring while putting their own touch to it? As someone who used to dabble in art, I have to say anything I created with my bare hands would be considered art, especially the amount of time I spent on a piece. Even if the same ref is used, every piece created by someone is never exactly the same. You can't have the same artist make two pieces of art exactly the same to every detail.

I want to point out that as someone who commissioned a few backgrounds, what if my ref was a photo at an angle that I liked? so I can't make a background cw in that particular angle? or do I have to treat that as a tribute and make 4 changes to it?

I interpreted the example the same as did, even if I have the artist redraw it to fit Subeta stands (HA canvas, cell shading, etc.) it still would not be enough changes? To me that is unsustainable for me to do as a commissioner. I would hope we are wrong and the rules are not that draconian.

First off, I want to show immediate support and appreciation for the way you've communicated here! What a lovely way to focus on improvements that serve the whole community (staff included!) and prioritize not just current user experience but long-term site support (from what I understand CWs are a huge part of what brings in the money needed to keep Subeta rocking and rolling).

As someone who has only participated in CWs in the form of buying released items (but is interested in possibly commissioning pieces of my own in the future) I am all for systems that are going to work long-term and create / maintain a positive experience for creators.

I think the idea of a CW Team is an excellent one! It just seems like a lot to have on one person, especially with how popular CWs are. I would think having at least a few folks involved in the process would serve to keep things flowing quickly / smoothly, which would result in increased revenue for the site. It also seems like the kind of thing where having several perspectives available to weigh in would be super helpful. There are of course rules to check submissions against, but there's also the element of it being art. While all the art needs to align with the general site guidelines / feel, there's still going to be variations and nuance. That's the kind of thing where even amongst a group of artists, one person may need to get another set of eyes to help them describe changes or make recommendations on how to adjust something. When we think of it on the scale of Subeta, it's not just reviewing and providing thoughtful and guiding feedback, but being able to communicate that feedback to a spectrum of communication styles. And then thinking of trying to offer effective and at times nuanced feedback quickly enough to keep up with all the submissions? I would think having only one person in this role would be a limiting factor!

To be balanced, I would never assume that it is staff's role to teach artists and help them develop certain skills. In the end, the staff are here to review a submission and provide clear information on why it does or does not meet requirements. So while it's lovely if they have time to share a resource or provide recommendations on how to do something, it shouldn't be expected. For example, let's say something needed adjusted shading. Expected would be something like "This submission was denied because it needs smoother and more detailed shading to meet our requirements for on-site art. Here is an example of a similar item with the kind of shading techniques we are looking for." Beyond expected would be including something like "If you need assistance with modifying the shading we recommend pinging this forum group of CW artists or exploring link resource on this skill".

With something like this, it should be expected that there will be some back and forth conversation, questions, even miscommunications. Being able to provide clear and detailed feedback on the front end, or after one question would probably save time overall. And, when there are miscommunications or challenges with finding the right recommendations, having a "we" is healthier for staff-community relationships that having an "I". And I would assume, less stressful for all.

As to the AI rule, I can honestly say you changed my mind! I am 100% in agreement with the site banning the use of AI, preventing AI programs from pulling from the site, etc. And I fully believe that AI rendering is theft and unfair to artists. Initially reading the newer rule about references I was like "yeah of course" but now that I've read what you and some others have expressed I have to agree with your perspective. In support of the rule, I would hate for folks here to go generate AI images to use as references. But in defense of ... not the rule? lol ... AI generated materials are increasingly difficult to avoid and make up a lot of the public access content online (sadly). I've even run things through some of the AI testers and they have a hard time agreeing (and many of them make you create a profile or even pay). Having seen a lot of the discussion, I also would be shocked if artists here generated AI to use as a reference. Everyone seems strongly against it. I think finding at least a middle ground is necessary. Maybe being able to show the AI wasn't generated by the user by sharing a link to it like you would any reference? I'm sure artists will weigh in with much more educated perspectives on that!

Given what you're saying in regards to the process and how a piece may be used as reference (ex: not taking art and recreating it exactly but rather pulling inspiration from elements of it) I can also see how there's room for even privately owned works to be references. Again, I'm sure artists and legally-minded folks can weigh in with more nuanced perspectives!

Full support and agreement to your words on Subeta as a whole. I have heard for a long time about the staff being short, about traffic being slow - yet here we are 20 years in and still a place where people are supported, encouraged, protected, welcomed and where improvements are always happening. I adore this site and I appreciate those like you who contribute thoughtful conversation. It's clear you care about the site and community, and I hope this discussion can refine the CW process so we roll through the next 20 years in an even smoother and more joyful manner.

So very well explained / said!

I hundred percent agree with and everyone here as a cw artist there are alot of things i get influenced by. I have also made a ticket in seeking the same clarification and unfortunately was not completely satisfied. I don't want to rip off anyone's art nor AI generated material but sometimes it does spike creativity inside that is impossible to get rid of.

This has been stressful as I have made a CI that I will now have to get rid of and re do because it was on pininterest. I thought it was free to use and it only had 10 to 20 percent inspiration for me. Rest of it was my own concept. Now I have to redo that concept and start new.

I decided to come back to CW but now with tough qualifications I am deciding to invest in my own items as references and take pictures of them to avoid any conflicts. Also as a cw artist I will also have to be super nit picky and even turn away commissions because It's a potential issue with reference that they commissioner gives.

I am also wondering if this approach is beneficial long run because if I turn away commission because the reference is ai generated or unsure of its origins..people will just be turned off from hiring me or any other artist on here.

I love subeta and want to see it flourish. I don't see it flourishing with these strict guidelines and as an artist I want to create. I want to create art ethically of course. But I also don't want to be limited either.

With all due respect to staff and their hardworking abilities to see the queue. I love everyone here on subeta and I want to be more apart of the community as an artist. I of course am willing to submit to whatever is eventually decided because ultimately whatever is best for subetas growth in the CW market is better than my own opinion.

And I definitely agree a team of 4 to 5 people to help possible burn out. I know sharing a department is better than running alone. I can't imagine the stress it takes to run Cw and our current QC has always been kind to me. Denials in the past has only helped me to improve as an artist. I totally respect them as far as getting feed back from. I just wanted to end my statement in the positive because I believe when we are strengthened and encouraged in a community we all the better for it!

I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here and honestly appreciate so many people speaking up about their concerns and explaining the reasoning so thoroughly. <3

While I do not have much to say about the AI aspect because everything I feel has been worded better than I could manage:

With the vagueness of public domain images at this point in time, I feel like it's worth mentioning that with the 4-difference rule in place and how creative we can get as artists to make it a drastically different thing from the reference image itself, entirely banning the use could prove to be catastrophic in the long run especially because many commissioners take items straight from Google Photos or other sources.

It's been mentioned in the past that if our references come from books or magazines rather than the internet, to attach photos in our notes. Those images however, are property and published. They belong to somebody or a corporation. Would this not muddy the waters of what's public and what's not on it's own? I do understand books are drastically different but do carry ownership of some degree.

I think at this point instead of adding rules without long-term planning, the rules should be revised altogether as a group rather than a single person going onward. Not just to ease the workload for one, but to also ensure that it's thorough, easy to follow and reasonable from different views perhaps. Such as, but not limited to: Some legal experience and familiarity with copyrighting law and photo use, artists and writers so it's more clear for both the experienced CW artists and ones wanting to enter the scene. Overall, I do think the rise of AI alone and the inevitable changes we'll face down the road should be a turning point for a rule overhaul on its own.

Thank you for helping us speak up about the concerns we have.

I am in agreement on pretty much every point people have brought up. We need more clarity, on refs, in AI, on reasons for denials. We need more people working in the CW approval system. The workload hardly seems fair. And exhaustion can cause as many issues, as lack of help. It's very frustrating to have to wait sometimes two weeks, on an approval/denial of a new item. And then if it gets denied, we don't understand what the reasoning is when it's another, does not match site style, when there is no set site style. Does not match site quality, when you see ancient early site items still that would get us laughed out of the queue if We submitted them. It's got to be a massive job for the kind of output this site has on CW's, but we truly need some clearer guidelines, and some consensus as a group, for a group. I have the feeling that a lot of revenue for the site is coming from this market. We get a quarter of the profit off of items we release when we spent hours/days/weeks/months working on them to make them hopefully to site standards. There are a few artists who even make a living doing CW's.

A rules revamp is definitely in order, with less arbitrary feeling flat statements. Instead give us real reasons, not a sweeping no you can't do this. Especially when it's been done a certain way, and fine that way, til it's suddenly not. Yes there is a HUGE issue with AI images, but I agree if it's used as a ref only, and not a copy of that thing...and not a stock photo ref. It should fall under the same rules as tributes...and the more changes the better with AI crap. To close my comment, we do appreciate the staff, and how hard they work, but a lot of the artists here are frustrated, and stressed with the system running as it is currently. WE post all this to hopefully institute positive change and feedback. We Love this site, and CW's, and we wanna see people happy.

Thank you for the opening post, Akita.

i'm not an artist or a releaser myself so maybe i don't have enough horses in this race to have a fully informed opinion, but i'd definitely like to see a clarification of the rules/guidelines regarding references (outwith AI generated ones - i do understand wanting to try and prevent the possibility of someone accidentally using an AI reference, though it does seem quite difficult to enforce alongside adding further rules regarding what references exactly are preferred), as i will admit i was a bit confused about it when i read the announcement myself! it does seem quite restrictive to me from an outside perspective.

basically just wanted to add support to the great points the artists and releasers in this thread have brought up! as the CW system has been in place as a core function of subeta for so long (for me anyway lmao... glancing over at my growing collection), naturally things will need to adapt and change to the current internet landscape and perhaps this referencing guideline is maybe a bit stricter than it had been originally intended. as pointed out, perhaps reviewing the rules holistically with a nominated group, not only to add the appropriate clarification but perhaps others as well, would be beneficial to keep the rules clear and simple for artists and releasers both? it's definitely a complex task that i wouldn't expect any one person to shoulder on their own.

edit: just clarifying some of my points since i felt like i wasn't 100% clear initially LOL

Thank you Akita for bringing up this important conversation. I think it's not an exaggeration to say that CWs mean so much to a lot of us who have been here for years, including myself. I'd mainly like to add my thoughts to the new rules regarding refs, that I feel are overly strict to the point where it discourages submissions.

I'd like to preface this by saying I am wholly against AI generated content (I refuse to refer to it as art) period. A machine cobbling together bits of stolen art is never comparable to a human’s work.

But... I don't think using an AI generated image as a references is the same as using AI. For starters, it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate between AI generated image and real art, more so for people who are not artists themselves or chronically online like myself. CW art in its nature is transformative as it requires conforming to subeta style, which of course requires some creativity in changing the shape/anatomy of the reference. Artists are not simply tracing from the ref or generating AI content themselves, that would be wrong. I think using an image as inspiration or because it strikes an idea within people shouldn't be disallowed just because the source is AI/an image not from the public domain. I truly believe this stifles creativity.

The new additions to the rules regarding refs just feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nail. Especially with the additional caveat that we can't use images not in the public domain as references. I feel this is very restrictive as (I only speak for myself) I often take inspiration from multiple images/pieces of art, taking a bit of A and a bit of B, and working together with the artist to create something that may appear very different. When submitting my item, I like to include all the refs used even as inspiration, because I still would consider them references and want to be forthright and honest. Being so strict about which refs can and cannot be used discourages people from being honest about their sources and what they were inspired by. On the other hand it's also against the rules not to disclose all your references. It feels like a very 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

I understand that getting a lot of vague refs is frustrating, and there's always that fear of threading on copyright. I can't even imagine how stressful that all must be. I myself have always tried to do my due diligence when it comes to sourcing refs, and I like to think that other submitters are mindful as well. But we are not perfect, and the internet is vast, and we can't help what we get inspired by.

My point being, I truly hope that the new rules against references can be reconsidered and loosened. In the event there is any suspicion regarding refs, I would also really like if there was the choice to have a discussion, perhaps via ticket, rather than being rejected completely or even worse, banned.

Some clarification on refs would also be much appreciated, some examples off the top of my head:

• Art that you commissioned yourself of OCs, or art that was gifted to you. Would those be allowed as refs? Given an OC's design is technically 'owned' by us.
• Generic fashion items such as jackets, cloaks, accessories etc. If I used art or photographs as a refs that aren't in the public domain, is that ok?
• Backgrounds of locations from photographs, as they may be copyrighted from the respective photographers. Are those allowed if its the same perspective and the same contents? Do we need to make 4 changes like in tributes etc.

To close on a more upbeat note, I would like to thank Jessi for all the hard work they have done for the CW community. It is certainly not an easy task to manage the queue alone and I'd like to put forward the idea again that the CW community is full of knowledgeable, passionate individuals who would be more than happy to assist. At this point, CWs bring in a large chunk of site revenue, I'd feel confident to say, and I think we all share a common goal in wishing to see it flourish and prosper and be able to enjoy this hobby for many more years ❤

i'm really glad to see the discussions about this happening. honestly, my first impression of the new rules did not leave a great taste in my mouth, but i'm hopeful that we can reach a middle ground somewhere.

the CW rules have become more lenient over the years (object heads, facial features, having cws that only work with other cws, etc), which is a great thing and definitely many steps forward when it comes to custom wearables, but the way i understand the new reference rules, i see it as a step back. the CW feature has been on this site for many years at this point (with countless CWs using non-copyright-free references), so i don't understand why things need to get more restrictive all of a sudden, and potentially discourage people from submitting new CWs?

prefacing the AI issue, as an artists i will always be against generating AI images, or using the generation process itself to directly make custom wearables. however, i do agree with the opinion that with how pervasive AI is nowadays (and how i think the influence will continue to grow), using already existing AI references online and making real artists make real art with their own spin (CWs) out of it is imo not a thing that should become a bannable offense. it is extremely easy to see it as black-and-white without thinking about how it would negatively affect actual artists working to bring people's ideas of custom wearables to life.

as is my understanding, the CW community has been and still is a big reason why the site is still afloat, and being as important a part of the site as it is, shouldn't we be more understanding and inclusive when it comes to people's ideas, not less so? i think we should be striving to make it easier and less intimidating for potential new artists and new commissioners to get into the world of custom wearables, and treating existing ones with kindness and equality.

thank you to everyone who's shared sinsight on the topic already!

Yes, it's unethical. Because if you're going to an artist for a commission, you need to be able to user your words to convey to them what you want exactly. There are plenty of real life photos you can provide to an artist to help you explain what you're looking for, say pose-wise or expression-wise. And as artists, you should not encourage people commissioning you to utilize AI generators.

The AI tools are stealing from actual artists and trained off actual artists work. The artists are not being compensated for it nor did they consent to it. Therefore, even using it at all is plain wrong. Anything with AI is 'all or nothing' for me. And I vote that no use of any sort should be allowed. I find AI is a slippery slope; "Oh I'll use it just this one time" will inevitably turn into a reliance on it.

t. not a CW artist, but I do my own pet overlays and commission for them as well

I'm gonna say it and get blocked by everyone here, go for it too:

AI is lazy.

You're artists, find another reference, the AI ones are obvious. If you use them as references for your own work, cool, go for it. If you're going to use them professionally, seek another profession. For how AI gleans information for their generative purposes from other artists. (Sorry, does "art theft" only ever bug you if it's you having art stolen?? Selfish!) That's why Adobe got hit with several dozen lawsuits back in June for their "machine learning." Among the several other articles, I can grab if need be.

I get Subeta's stance.

I'm astonished that people aren't able to or unwilling to grasp that here. Should it be a bannable offense? No, that's extreme. That shouldn't be happening. And an even hotter take - should the CWs be removed from the system if they're found out to be AI influenced? Hmmmmm, yeah.

How are the pieces getting through Subeta's CW approval system if they're AI or AI influenced? Well, we could start with how unnervingly close to passably "human" some of the art is getting and how the tech for detecting such things is normally a human looking over things. Do we shut down the CW submission until something comes in and graces us with a certain way to detect AI? Be reasonable.

Okay, have fun blocking me.

Just my opinion. All through the ages, artists have used other artists' work as references. Art movements such as Art Deco and Art Nouveau, etc started when somebody came up with a new style and other artists adopted the style and did their own variations using it.

Using an AI generated image as a reference is no different to using any other image one can find on the internet. I am very interested in AI and robotics so have been following all kinds of discussions about AI Image Generators and Language Models. Some artists say they generate AI images and then use these as inspirations for paintings etc. Does the AI ban include CW makers who generate images and then use these images for inspiration when drawing and painting CW clothing items and backgrounds?

I remember when digital was new with tablets and computer art programs beyond MS Paint. There was always purest who said it would lead to the downfall of art. But here's the thing: unlike AI, digital art is no different than traditional mediums. You still have to learn your fundamentals. If you suck at your fundamentals, then it doesn't matter if you're traditional or digital, it will show. Practice, though, makes perfect. Or at least you should get better than when you started if you're consistent, persistent and determined to succeed.

AI however skips the learning process of things like foreshortening. Because all that's being done is putting in keywords of what you want and then a machine poops out various images. AI is NOT comparable as a medium like oil paint, watercolor or digital. AI is a means of cheating yourself from properly learning art techniques, all for the sake of speed and getting what you want right away without doing any actual hard work.

i don't disagree with anything you said in your last post; AI is lazy. It spits in the face of artists that took years, decades to learn to do what they do (i would know, i am one.)

it's entirely unrelated to the points discussed in this thread, though. What we're discussing here is the process of cw commissions, the rules and the vagueness of it being banned for usage as a reference: that can mean a lot of things. Do I advocate for someone generating an AI image in any circumstance? Hell no. Do I think they should be punished for seeing an image in the wild (like everyone does multiple times a day because AI images are everywhere) and being inspired to do/ commission something relating to it? no. Reference here is very vague; the AI image can be used to just give a vibe, a concept, etc. How is that any different from seeing a random picture and being inspired by it, if the person didn't participate in the generating of the image with AI at all? That's the question we're posing here, not a discussion about AI in general, but this specific type of circumstance.

I don't think anyone should be banned for it at the start or first instance. Give a warning first. If the person continues to break the same rule, then ban them.