Clearer Guidelines/Protection For Independent Artists, Help Combating Rise of AI

Clearer Guidelines/Protection For Independent Artists, Help Combating Rise of AI
Posted 2024-11-12 20:24:45 (edited) #1330862 The title may be misleading, I wasn't sure how to sum up what I'm thinking. I'll try to keep this organized. I would like to start by saying the art community here on Wolvden means a lot to me. I can easily credit this for my improvement in digital art over the 2 years and I am grateful for each person who has taken a chance on me and my art. I understand this is a very delicate issues and the world of art is getting messier and messier, but I believe that it needs to be addressed. That being said I would like to keep this a conversation and not an attack, if I have missed anything or made a mistake please let me know. I posting this because this is an issues I care about, and the handling of this is not sitting well with me an turning me away from wanting to financially support the site. Issues with AI There has been a rise in AI art, and AI art is getting harder and harder to detect I think there should be a system in place in case an artist is mistakenly accused of using AI art. If an artist is accused how should they defend themselves/prove they don't use AI art, Provide a speedpaint? It could work but this isn't always realistic, there are a lot of programs that can record, but I have an older computer that can't always handle larger files, and attempts of recording have crashed my program. Provide the working file? .psd .kra These seems like it could be a good idea, most programs can open other programs files Have artists show each separate layer on the piece Do artists need to log and post each step of their process? Do we need to have all our sketches posted to our art threads or if we are accused will we have a chance to provide them as evidence? Personally I think there could be some issues with some of these, ie posting sketches could make it easier for people to steal art/ideas, but I think it's fair for artists to be able to provide proof of not using AI, as long as it's used fairly. Issues With How Artists can Use References: We have this thread to go off of, but there are some gray areas that leave it open to harmful handling: link I have noticed an uptick in effort to ensure artists are following rules and not using AI, I image that there may have been an inciting incident. I don't think it's a bad thing, AI is theft and I appreciate Wolvden's Stance on AI Art. Now the issues I have with this. Tracing is bad, that is clear, however eyeballing is a gray area. Artists all over the world have and always use references. Copying compositions and tracing images is wrong, however I have seen some artists get hits on their art when their art is based off multiple references, and they are not copies of the references. How much needs to be changed? And sometimes that amount needing to be changed seems to be inconsistent. For clarification I will be using my own art as examples, Art: Sketch: (Fixed the too long front leg between sketch and digital) Reference: link Under the Spoiler for Space Alright so, you can see the reference, this was a personal piece not a commission I did, however, there are changes, I switched the placement of the back leg, the back is more bent and the pose is more pulled together, and the angle of the head is different as well, its not turned the same as the photo, the photo was used for anatomy and some of the leg placement, but is is clearly not traced. Does this break the rule for eyeballing? Is this too close? Another example: Under Spoiler for Room Artwork: Sketches: Reference Image: (Taken by nojafoto (Honza Novák) from instagram) This reference photo was more inspiration from the pose between the trees as a bed, clearly not traced as it's a different animal, the season is different as well as it being different types of trees, as well as the trees in the background are different. The animal is looking in a different direction, does this count as eyeballing? What is I use multiple reference images, one for the head, and 2 more to put together a pose, is it too close eyeballing for the whole thing? If I need to check if I get the teeth right, or that the pose of the back legs makes sense for the stage in the walk cycle and I use a reference does this break the rules? I bring this up because I see inconsistencies with official Wolvden art. These are some examples, Courage Wolf: This reference photo is a perfect match to the art, it was taken by nature photographer Jeff Vanuga and uploaded to Corbis Images Insanity Wolf: The source of this photo is unknown and is widely believed to be public domain, but it is still a perfect exact match to the art. Laughing Wolves: All that's changed in the placement of the bent leg, I've seen artist get hit for similar changes. link I get these all originate from memes, but based on how they've been interacting with artists in regards to these rules, these seem to break Wolvden's own rules. I also have a problem with how Wolvden has handled this, I get this is a fine line, and I get wanting to protect the site a business, but I am feeling that some artists are being disrespected. These pieces are behind a paywall, the standards should be the same across the board, for official and personal artists on site. Art makes this community the great place it is, there needs to be due process for figuring this out, artists need the chance to defend themselves and protect themselves, as well as needing clearer guidelines. There needs to be a process to fight false/mistaken allegations.	Nuit(Rolling Events) #109478

Posted 2024-11-12 20:24:45 (edited)

#1330862

The title may be misleading, I wasn't sure how to sum up what I'm thinking. I'll try to keep this organized.
I would like to start by saying the art community here on Wolvden means a lot to me. I can easily credit this for my improvement in digital art over the 2 years and I am grateful for each person who has taken a chance on me and my art. I understand this is a very delicate issues and the world of art is getting messier and messier, but I believe that it needs to be addressed. That being said I would like to keep this a conversation and not an attack, if I have missed anything or made a mistake please let me know.

I posting this because this is an issues I care about, and the handling of this is not sitting well with me an turning me away from wanting to financially support the site.

Issues with AI

There has been a rise in AI art, and AI art is getting harder and harder to detect I think there should be a system in place in case an artist is mistakenly accused of using AI art.
If an artist is accused how should they defend themselves/prove they don't use AI art,

Provide a speedpaint? It could work but this isn't always realistic, there are a lot of programs that can record, but I have an older computer that can't always handle larger files, and attempts of recording have crashed my program.

Provide the working file? .psd .kra These seems like it could be a good idea, most programs can open other programs files

Have artists show each separate layer on the piece

Do artists need to log and post each step of their process? Do we need to have all our sketches posted to our art threads or if we are accused will we have a chance to provide them as evidence?
Personally I think there could be some issues with some of these, ie posting sketches could make it easier for people to steal art/ideas, but I think it's fair for artists to be able to provide proof of not using AI, as long as it's used fairly.

Issues With How Artists can Use References:

We have this thread to go off of, but there are some gray areas that leave it open to harmful handling: link
I have noticed an uptick in effort to ensure artists are following rules and not using AI, I image that there may have been an inciting incident. I don't think it's a bad thing, AI is theft and I appreciate Wolvden's Stance on AI Art.
Now the issues I have with this.
Tracing is bad, that is clear, however eyeballing is a gray area. Artists all over the world have and always use references. Copying compositions and tracing images is wrong, however I have seen some artists get hits on their art when their art is based off multiple references, and they are not copies of the references. How much needs to be changed? And sometimes that amount needing to be changed seems to be inconsistent.

For clarification I will be using my own art as examples,

Art:

Sketch: (Fixed the too long front leg between sketch and digital)

Reference:

link Under the Spoiler for Space
Alright so, you can see the reference, this was a personal piece not a commission I did, however, there are changes, I switched the placement of the back leg, the back is more bent and the pose is more pulled together, and the angle of the head is different as well, its not turned the same as the photo, the photo was used for anatomy and some of the leg placement, but is is clearly not traced.
Does this break the rule for eyeballing? Is this too close?

Another example: Under Spoiler for Room
Artwork:

Sketches:

Reference Image:

(Taken by nojafoto (Honza Novák) from instagram)

This reference photo was more inspiration from the pose between the trees as a bed, clearly not traced as it's a different animal, the season is different as well as it being different types of trees, as well as the trees in the background are different. The animal is looking in a different direction, does this count as eyeballing?

What is I use multiple reference images, one for the head, and 2 more to put together a pose, is it too close eyeballing for the whole thing? If I need to check if I get the teeth right, or that the pose of the back legs makes sense for the stage in the walk cycle and I use a reference does this break the rules?

I bring this up because I see inconsistencies with official Wolvden art. These are some examples,
Courage Wolf: This reference photo is a perfect match to the art, it was taken by nature photographer Jeff Vanuga and uploaded to Corbis Images

Insanity Wolf: The source of this photo is unknown and is widely believed to be public domain, but it is still a perfect exact match to the art.

Laughing Wolves: All that's changed in the placement of the bent leg, I've seen artist get hit for similar changes.

link

I get these all originate from memes, but based on how they've been interacting with artists in regards to these rules, these seem to break Wolvden's own rules.

I also have a problem with how Wolvden has handled this, I get this is a fine line, and I get wanting to protect the site a business, but I am feeling that some artists are being disrespected. These pieces are behind a paywall, the standards should be the same across the board, for official and personal artists on site. Art makes this community the great place it is, there needs to be due process for figuring this out, artists need the chance to defend themselves and protect themselves, as well as needing clearer guidelines. There needs to be a process to fight false/mistaken allegations.

Nuit(Rolling Events)
#109478

Posted 2024-11-13 09:29:16

#1331134

Hi!

Thank you for making this thread. I just wanted to chime in with some additional input and add additional support with some extra words. I think the thread and points made are really well articulated and really resonates with the experiences I've seen happening lately.

I've been on this site for a while and I can say that a large amount of the reason I've stuck around is because of the very talented artists that exist here and generate purchasable pieces or CDs for the site. In fact the friends I've made here have encouraged me to get into digital drawing more - initially it was with the hope that I'd be able to make and sell my own art here for folks.

That being said, with some of the recent events I've heard about, I am concerned. I want to make it clear that I am firmly against AI art and agree that its overall a very harmful thing for artists. And its difficult to combat and it is getting harder to identify. However, I think the approach that's being taken, and for it to go as far as to not 'heavily reference' something is a bit absurd. I am also incredibly worried about overreach here.

With AI accusations in particular, I feel like there should be a more formal process that does allow the artist to provide proof of work and defend themselves. I agree with many of the options provided in the original post.

Without the ability to defend yourself against these allegations there is nothing to stop a disgruntled person from reporting your art as AI out of spite. The reasons for doing so could form a list much longer than I have time for. If artists are presumed guilty from the jump then that is one of the fastest way to torpedo engagement and destroy the art community that WD has manage to cultivate.

Will this extend to custom decor? Will CDs that have already been approved and are very clear references to fandom or other well known pop culture moments be removed/refunded? And while it is possible, it is also incredibly difficult to create and put to 'paper' an idea completely from your own mind. References are there to help inform artists of proportions and other important aspects of anatomy and how things exist in the real world. However, this appears to be a direct violation of the referencing rules linked in the original post under 'frankendolling'.

At what point does a piece become uniquely the artist's? Part of this is subjective, which is why I understand it is difficult to manage, but given the tracing references within WDs own official art, I think some time needs to be taken before coming after artists in this way.

As a final point, while I have no idea how this is handled internally, I would like to say that this likely should not be a scenario handled by moderators. I have no issues with the moderation team, but given the complexity and skillset needed to be able to identify these things, I feel like they should be elevated to the WD staff.

Thank you again for making this, Nuit!

Katerpie | DH Enthusiast
#71388

Posted 2024-11-13 11:22:06

#1331292

I completely agree with the points raised. This should be a place where artists come to flourish, not a place where they feel discouraged from practicing their hobbies.

Because of the vector-like line art I create using the pen tool over my sketches, I've been accused of using AI. You can see my process in the video linked here:
https://vimeo.com/1029342831

I'm not a professional concept artist and don't claim to be but I do work in the game and film industry and not every flaw in a drawing warrants criticism or suspicion.

While, unfortunately, there will always be cases of stolen or misused art, jumping to conclusions and blaming genuine artists only creates a hostile environment. This approach isn't the solution to keeping art spaces welcoming for newer artists or making an RP game more enjoyable for everyone.

Draconis |semi-hiatus|
#139601

Posted 2024-11-13 11:24:18

#1331294

Supported!

Artists of varying statuses, from beginner to employed professional, have been proven to use shortcuts, heavily reference, or "cheat" in some way.
This includes:
-media mashing/media stacking
-tracing your own original photography/heavily referencing it
-tracing images of your own body
-use a 3D program like blender, sculpt, and use it in the image or trace the sculpture
-using ai filters over their own original art to change the texture
Etc, etc, etc

You can choose to draw the line, but at the end of the, if someone does it well, you're just not gonna know, period. Especially if someone traces AI art well.
Going after reports with no proof is just bad management, and when it's a real artist, you only hurt this platform.
Being THIS harsh when professionals are doing the same behavior in the real world just pushes artists away from submitting art at all.
Especially when it's obvious that WD artists are definitely heavily referencing at a times. I would not be surprised if I found out they traced a few things here and there. It's human nature.

Personally, even though I don't do any of the tactics above, Wolvdens harsh restrictions pushed me away from submitted CD, and is causing artists to stop all together, or shy away.

They are not setting a good example, and they are setting up custom decor for failure in the future.

☣🦊VoidBornVixen🦊☣ L-On
#31877

Posted 2024-11-13 12:18:22

#1331390

Supporting!

The fact that an admin/admins are making a hostile environment for an artist is wild to me. I am not an artist myself, but if someone would be blaming me for something I didn't do, I'd be bothered and upset.

Instead of making the artist feel they are at fault for something they didn't do, an investigation should happen and like the court says "innocent until proven guilty".

I am baffled this is even happening to begin with, and it's really putting a dent in the community, specially those like myself that truly enjoy the artwork of some of the artists here whom we love and cherish dearly.

So please admins, if you're reading this, as someone who honestly spends irl money on gc to purchase artwork from others, please look into this matter and handle it professionally.

In the end we are all here to take our mind off of things, not have additional stress added.

Sangre🩸Khaleesi Of Irons
#13415

Posted 2024-11-13 13:02:43

#1331437

Hello!

Per our Game Development board guide, this board is not a place for discussing our rules and policies. Therefore, we'll be locking this topic.

Please note that our Tree Carving Rules have been in effect for over a decade on Lioden, and over 4 years on Wolvden. We won't be changing them now. It was already linked, but we have an old guide that still serves the purpose of showing differences between proper referencing and copying. You can find other, similar guides online.

With regard to AI art, this is an ongoing challenge for us and the whole art community. We're dealing with complaints that we do not do enough to ban AI art, as well as complaints like this one, that we are accusing artists unfairly. This problem is only going to get worse as generative AI gets better, so we'll likely update and clarify our rules on AI art in the future.

Please note that contrary to claims in the posts above, we treat each case individually and do not just base our rulings on reports (or AI detectors for that matter, as those aren't reliable). Artists can also make appeals, and we reverted some of our previous rulings on AI art usage when we received enough evidence to the contrary.

We hope this helps explain our stance and procedures regarding handling of art on site, and our view towards the future.

Deader
#6

Clearer Guidelines/Protection For Independent Artists, Help Combating Rise of AI

Activity

Activity