Parallel Black 
How do I protect my art from being used to feed an AI algorithm? Is there anything the admins can do on Derpi to automatically “skip” an artist’s gallery, similar to a DNP, whenever someone tries to sweep large amounts of pictures?
About AI art theft...
Ciaran 
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Parallel Black
Any work that is derivative of your work is still protected by your copyright. It doesn’t matter if the edit is manually done by hand or automated via AI.
Any work that is derivative of your work is still protected by your copyright. It doesn’t matter if the edit is manually done by hand or automated via AI.
Is this happening now? Are there example on the site of what you are talking about?
Parallel Black
@Ciaran
None that I could actually point out, at least, but it’s 100% happening elsewhere. Those AI programs don’t get their data from nowhere, after all. From what I’ve heard a lot of the “data” comes from DeviantArt and Twitter, but again, automatically-generated ponies come from real pictures, so there’s no reason to believe there aren’t bots capable of trawling the depths of Derpi’s gallery for stuff to use.
None that I could actually point out, at least, but it’s 100% happening elsewhere. Those AI programs don’t get their data from nowhere, after all. From what I’ve heard a lot of the “data” comes from DeviantArt and Twitter, but again, automatically-generated ponies come from real pictures, so there’s no reason to believe there aren’t bots capable of trawling the depths of Derpi’s gallery for stuff to use.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
I’m glad to hear it’s not a problem here.
For this site, I think the easiest, and most sane approach, is to just follow out established policies for tracing.
Regardless of the form of intelligence doing the drawing, if the image is plausibly traced then your rights are reserved.
But if all that’s happened is that an AI or a human artist merely browsed a bunch of images to draw inspiration, then that is just the nature of art.
People have been drawing inspiration from museums and other kinds of galleries as long as there has been art.
Now AI is doing the same.
You can’t stop someone from looking at an image and being inspired to draw. All you can do is look at what they drew as a result of the inspiration and ask if it is a trace or an edit, or if it’s a unique work of art.
Parallel Black
@Ciaran
Let me reiterate my original concern, because I think you missed the crux of the point of this post:
Let me reiterate my original concern, because I think you missed the crux of the point of this post:
I, and not only me, do not want our artwork being used to feed an AI algorithm. There is absolutely no way of applying the tracing policy to AI art since the lines and colours are all going to be in a different arrangements, in an approximation of the various pictures used.
That’s why I want Derpi to put some kind of protection in place to prevent art from being stolen and misused en-masse.
I’m glad to hear it’s not a problem here.
Bruh. I literally said there’s no reason not to believe someone has a bot capable of gathering large amounts of data. AI-generated ponies already exist in large numbers, meaning it’s already happened, and it will become a problem here soon. A bot could collect every image under a specific tag and then feed that into an algorithm to generate a perfect copy of an artist’s work without their knowledge or permission. In that specific scenario I guess the tracing policy could come into play, but it doesn’t cover the more general AI images drawn from multiple artists, who also never gave their consent.
Background Pony #5108
There is no possible protection aside from refraining to participate online. If a human can access it, a bot scraping files from the internet can access it, and there also will be people with no cares given for “usage rules” or “attribution rights” and out of reach of any government laws enforcement that care, either.
Don’t post art for others to see if you don’t want either humans or software learning from that information.
This has been the case for well over a decade.
Don’t post art for others to see if you don’t want either humans or software learning from that information.
This has been the case for well over a decade.
Alternately, ruin the pictures so thoroughly with all-covering watermarks so that an AI would inevitably learn that mimicing your style means also covering it with watermarks, thus poisoning the data set (and, collaterally, the enjoyment of all humans who’d look at your art, too.)
Ryhaal 
I’d destroy my art with all kinds of watermarks before I’d let some AI learn from it without my written permission.
You wanna see it without? Join my Patreon, SubscribeStar or whatever.
You wanna see it without? Join my Patreon, SubscribeStar or whatever.
There is a world of difference between an actual person seeing a piece of art and drawing inspiration from it and some unthinking, unfeeling bot just using a picture to make a hand 16% more accurately or whatever. If you cannot understand that you have no business running a site based entirely on user created content because it is clear you do not respect artists. If you did, you would understand that nobody with a shred of self respect would wish for their craft to become a commodity for a computer to use. It’s just fucked up.
Oh and there is a difference between “pretty pictures” and “Art”. AI doesn’t do art, it’s not capable to, it can’t think for itself. But damn do they make some pretty pictures!
That’s worth throwing god-knows how many artists under the bus apparently.
This is how you kill fandoms and drive content creators away. I’m so glad I asked for a purge of my artwork off of here. Even Furaffinity was smart enough to realize that and ban AI-generated art on their site.
That’s worth throwing god-knows how many artists under the bus apparently.
This is how you kill fandoms and drive content creators away. I’m so glad I asked for a purge of my artwork off of here. Even Furaffinity was smart enough to realize that and ban AI-generated art on their site.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Ryhaal
We are not “throwing artists under the bus” or “killing the fandom”. We are trying to find a structure within which to respond to these threats.
We are not “throwing artists under the bus” or “killing the fandom”. We are trying to find a structure within which to respond to these threats.
If promptly removing any and all images that you report for violating your copyright is not sufficient, then what would be?
What is it that you think a site like this could do that would prevent an image from being fed to an AI algorithm?
This isn’t a new problem - the exact same concerns and issues surround the AI image resizing tools, and the AI voice actors. If approaching this from the copyright standpoint isn’t sufficient for you, and given that the site is not banning all AI sourced or enhanced content, then what is it that you think should be done?
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
Maybe an example will help communicate.
- Is this Rule #3?
- No. It’s plausibly MLP and a recognizable character.
- The site determined years ago that AI generated content was acceptable, as long as it was tagged properly and didn’t otherwise break any rules.
- Is this Rule #1?
- The image is derivative of artist:greg rutkowski
- Greg Rutkowski is not an artist in the fandom and we have no public statement from them forbidding this derivative use of their art.
- There is no evidence that this image violates any of Greg Rutkowski’s licenses
So, the image is not rule breaking.
That said, if Greg Rutkowski asked to have this image removed it would be promptly removed because their rights are reserved.
If we treat the AI generators as if they are humans, then copyright still works.
The problem is that many of the images that are uploaded to not have any information about which artist they are derivative of, so we have no way to verify that the image does not violate the rights of that artist.
So - as artists, if you see an image that is derivative of your work, please report it and per our policy on derivative works if your claim is plausible we will delete the image.
I understand that some of you find this process unacceptable.
What is it that you think we should be changing or doing instead?
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
Oh, and in case this wasn’t already understood - the people generating these images are not classified here as ‘artists’. They have no rights whatsoever to any images they direct AI to create.
We treat it all exactly the same way we treat pony creation tools, AI generated vocal tracks, or image re-sizers.
If it violates the copyright of an artist, the image goes. And the only reason someone doing this would get an artist tag is because they are generating so much stuff that people need a way to filter them - but, in these cases - that artist tag does not convey any copyright.
Any such images themselves are exactly the same as an automatically generated tween frame in an animation.
Who drew it?
The computer did. The computer doesn’t have any rights.
Ryhaal
Arguably this is the same problem. The difference is that this is that problem on steroids since it doesn’t only affect a limited number of professional voice actors, but every artist, both amateur and professional alike. I don’t see some random, commission-based, twitter VA as a voice choice on 15.ai.
What is it that you think a site like this could do that would prevent an image from being fed to an AI algorithm?That’s the funny part, you cannot be sure. Which is why a blanket ban on all AI art is the only solution. To disincentivize use of the tool in the first place and reduce the pool from which the people who are making these AIs can get “clean” pictures from.
Anything that would make sure that your website is as safe as it can be for an actual artist. You have to take a stance in some way or another. Otherwise, do you really think people will continue to allow you to host their images here if this goes unchecked? If I know I can just make a scraper and have it rummage through all of derpibooru’s tags and get thousands and thousands of refs, easily and unpunished, why wouldn’t I? Your role as an “archive” facilitates the work these people do unfortunately.
Anything that would make sure that your website is as safe as it can be for an actual artist. You have to take a stance in some way or another. Otherwise, do you really think people will continue to allow you to host their images here if this goes unchecked? If I know I can just make a scraper and have it rummage through all of derpibooru’s tags and get thousands and thousands of refs, easily and unpunished, why wouldn’t I? Your role as an “archive” facilitates the work these people do unfortunately.
AI image resizing toolsThere is a massive difference between an AI upscaler, which just makes the original image bigger, and an AI creation tool, which uses a set pool of reference images and feeds them through an algorythm to create a pastiche based on a prompt.
the AI voice actorsArguably this is the same problem. The difference is that this is that problem on steroids since it doesn’t only affect a limited number of professional voice actors, but every artist, both amateur and professional alike. I don’t see some random, commission-based, twitter VA as a voice choice on 15.ai.
CookieGalaxy 
Title
What is it that you think a site like this could do that would prevent an image from being fed to an AI algorithm
Sadly nothing. Derpibooru has been archived externally and sorted for AI use for years now.
AI image resizing tools
It’s not well defined, we had AI that can add shadows and details, AI that can resize images, AI that can create images from scratch, AI that can create images from sketches or line art. How much work has to be done by the AI before it is considered to be the AI and not the prompt/image maker who owns the product?
Sorry, I feel like I’m being an antagonist here, but the simple answer is that AI artwork is going to take over a massive portion of uploads. Even things like resolution and invisible watermarks are very easy to circumvent.
I keep my model private but there’s already many people trying to make their own models, who with enough money and coding ability can easily create artwork that looks realistic and is undetectable. Right now luckily it costs $500~ to make a custom stable-diffusion model, but it won’t be long till the number drops and any/everybody can have their own image AI.
Things I can recommend would be making it clear and easy to mark AI artworks. Maybe collaborate with the pony AI creators?
(I’m biased but I like most of the AI people I talk to)
(I’m biased but I like most of the AI people I talk to)
Everybody who uses these AI generators seems to suddenly think they’re amazing artists and I full expect some people to act like idiots with the new tools they have and try to share it to everybody they can regardless of sentiment.
Bigcheese
To be clear, this image is not a derivative of Greg Rutkowski’s work, and Greg Rutkowski has no rights to it. Greg Rutkowski is added to prompts because the model has learned that Greg Rutkowski makes detailed good art, not that it has learned to copy their drawings. This is very similar to other words like “trending on artstation, Unreal Engine 5, 8k”. It’s all just trying to poke the “good art” bits of the latent space.
There is another part to this where, given enough training data, the AI can emulate styles. However there’s no such thing as copyright on a style, there’s plenty of art on here of one artist emulating another’s style and it doesn’t get tagged as the emulated artist. This model actually has enough training data to very poorly emulate tjpones style, but would you accept a takedown request for an image that was just in the style of tjpones by a human artist?
You’re basically never going to find a case where models like Stable Diffusion copy existing art.
Background Pony #E3F5
@Bigcheese
Slightly off topic but I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to emulate artist style in like 3 weeks.
This model actually has enough training data to very poorly emulate tjpones styleSlightly off topic but I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to emulate artist style in like 3 weeks.
Exedrus 
Which is why a blanket ban on all AI art is the only solution. To disincentivize use of the tool in the first place and reduce the pool from which the people who are making these AIs can get “clean” pictures from.
Banning posting AI-generated art does send a message, but it doesn’t do anything to prevent image scraping. There’s pretty much nothing anyone can really do to stop that. Someone who understands scripting well enough will just make their mass-downloading look like a dozen normal Derpi users with similar tastes. As unfortunate as it is, I really doubt any policies an art site can implement will do much to prevent AI-generation from growing in scope over the next several years.
If I know I can just make a scraper and have it rummage through all of derpibooru’s tags and get thousands and thousands of refs, easily and unpunished, why wouldn’t I?
What alternative is there? Any site that makes it easy for humans to find the images they like will inevitably also make it easy for AI to scrape those images from the site.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
There is a massive difference between an AI upscaler, which just makes the original image bigger, and an AI creation tool, which uses a set pool of reference images and feeds them through an algorythm to create a pastiche based on a prompt.
From the standpoint of our approach to copyright they are identical.
The resized image is derivative and if the artist wishes it removed, we remove it. The artist gets to choose how they wish their art to presented.
Without this, even things as simple as Patreon exclusive images would lose their meaning.
So, for me, it is a vastly more significant problem, because it competes with artists for revenue streams.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
Sorry, I feel like I’m being an antagonist here, but the simple answer is that AI artwork is going to take over a massive portion of uploads. Even things like resolution and invisible watermarks are very easy to circumvent.
Ten years from now, I believe a direct copyright approach may be the only approach that survives and remains functional.
All the what-ifs aside, a derivative piece is still derivative, and if you focus on the rights of the artist, and make sure they retain their rights, then the computers are just another in a sea of derivative artists that we have to handle.
Pony creators were a massive problem when they first came out, and they answered the question “is it a uniquely copyrightable work?” with the fortunate answer: “No.”
Now AIs are making better art.
But it’s still not a uniquely copyrightable work.
2LDR: Human artists win.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Bigcheese
I don’t believe that’s been tested yet to the point where anyone can predict what the outcome would be.
I don’t believe that’s been tested yet to the point where anyone can predict what the outcome would be.
Our policies don’t extend to style emulation, and it’s resulted in some real messes, especially when you have someone making hundreds or even a thousand or more emulations of someone else’s work, as we’ve seen happen several times now.
If someone did it with a commercial product like PalComix, then we might get a solid policy.
But with fan artists, most of them are already emulating Hasbro. So … wot do?
And with TJPones, style emulation is already something they are having fun with, so the precedence is that they’re ok with it.
Somewhere out there is the next test case. I don’t even know what it will be, but it will be interesting to see what it is when it arrives, and happens with it.
That’s why I was hoping any of the artists posting here had an example of their own work being “traced” by an AI. Then we’d have an actual object to experiment with.
But, it seems this is all still speculative.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
Actually, now that I think of it, we have had cases of AI made or improved images being taken down because they replicated Patreon Exclusive content.
That the image was or wasn’t a trace, or how it was generated didn’t even come into the question.
So, in some cases it being AI generated isn’t even a consideration.
It really depends on how it’s being used.
CookieGalaxy
Title
@Ciaran
I feel like we just completely misunderstood each other.
I feel like we just completely misunderstood each other.
My concern is not that the work is derivative or not. Using any artists work as reference/input for an AI absolutely makes the output owned by the person who created the reference artwork. I agree with you completely.
The problem I see is how can you tell which artwork was created by a human or an AI?
Someone can simply say “I made this art by hand” and if the AI is good enough then you simply have to take their word or go through a artist verification process with pictures of their setup or something.
Maybe it’s just because I’m not an artist, but AI generated images from stable-diffusion are extremely convincing to me and it worries me how bad actors might use the generator.
There’s a NSFW collage on my profile from an incomplete model. Each image takes me about 4 seconds to produce (and the top 5% were used for the collage). Can you imagine dealing with 1440 images per day of plausible AI generated images?
I mean, you would just IP ban the person, but still I could see this being a major problem for any dishonest users.
I mean, you would just IP ban the person, but still I could see this being a major problem for any dishonest users.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
The problem I see is how can you tell which artwork was created by a human or an AI?
How do you tell if a frame is a key frame or a tween?
For me, it doesn’t matter. I honestly do not even consider it.
Someone can simply say “I made this art by hand” and if the AI is good enough then you simply have to take their word or go through a artist verification process with pictures of their setup or something.
And Photoshop filters are amazing, but the tools don’t change who made the image.
We don’t verify artists based on tools. We verify artists based on their copyrightable works.
Maybe it’s just because I’m not an artist, but AI generated images from stable-diffusion are extremely convincing to me and it worries me how bad actors might use the generator.
If a bad actor is recreating paywalled content, or selling commercial recreations that are derivative of someone else’s work, we don’t care what tools they use.
Bad actors get banned, and if their images are rule breaking (which they often are) those get yeeted too.
But it’s rarely so cut-and-dried. The details go many layers deep. Just consider artists who have tried to impersonate other artists - using AI is just another tool. The problem and our processes for handling it already exists.
Can you imagine dealing with 1440 images per day of plausible AI generated images?
We have had to deal with it. Or something very similar. Repeatedly. If it’s spam we delete it if appropriate, and if the uploader won’t stop we ban them.
Often we try to keep a handful of the images if they’re not horrific. And increasingly, they’re less shit over time.
Do you not remember the whole “no such pony” thing that happened? Functionally, that was the same thing.
Regardless, we feel like artwork made by humans should be the forefront of the site.
Humans win. Artists retain their rights.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Background Pony #E3F5
Just noticed this. Please, in any given thread, post as yourself or anonymously. Trying to present yourself as two or more people in one thread is against our rules.
Just noticed this. Please, in any given thread, post as yourself or anonymously. Trying to present yourself as two or more people in one thread is against our rules.
CookieGalaxy
Title
@Ciaran
TPDNE is extremely unconvincing to me, I can tell the difference between outputs from that model and a human with 99% accuracy,
however it’s clear that you believe this is a non-issue so I won’t worry about it.
Do you not remember the whole “no such pony” thing that happened?TPDNE is extremely unconvincing to me, I can tell the difference between outputs from that model and a human with 99% accuracy,
however it’s clear that you believe this is a non-issue so I won’t worry about it.
CookieGalaxy
Title
@Ciaran
That was an accident, the “Anonymous” button defaults to on and I didn’t realise until after I posted.
Feel free to delete the post or “deanonymize” it.
That was an accident, the “Anonymous” button defaults to on and I didn’t realise until after I posted.
Feel free to delete the post or “deanonymize” it.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!