Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

3D renders are NOT screenshots.

This doesn't affect me at all, but apparently InkBunny's staff have decided that all 3D art, including the kinds of renders that take literal days to finish, count as "screenshots"; therefore unless you sculpted every last vertex in them, they don't count as "your artwork or creations".

This comes straight from the main site admin, GreenReaper, seen in the comments in this journal: https://inkbunny.net/j/556551-LITTLEFisky--urgent-inkbu...

Featuring such hot takes as:

"	But it is not OK to have significant components attributable to a single source uncredited in a final work

...unless it's a GenAI piece that was entirely made from uncredited sources, of course.

"	There isn't on the face of it anything wrong with derivative works, but they have to be credited and made with permission like any other submission

...unless it's a GenAI submission that only has to credit the model and not any of the tens of thousands of artists whose work was stolen, of course.

"	We don't really want a bunch of generic models doing the same things to each other, which is what we were getting with Second Life, SFM, etc.

...unless it's generation #32,742 of Loona in the default GenAI art style, of course.

I don't like cub art, and yet I can respect IB's position of "we should allow it in the name of artistic freedom".
I have mixed feelings on GenAI, and yet I can respect IB's position of "we should allow it in the name of artistic freedom".
But for artistic freedom to suddenly not matter when it comes to 3D art? That's pure hypocrisy. Any model more complicated than a default Blender cube is a form of artistic expression.

If they argue it's easy to make low-effort samey submissions, why allow GenAI? Not to mention that 3D work takes tons of time, effort, and skill: 3D art is HARD. Even if you use premade assets, posing and lighting is not easy. Why do you think the best 3D artists have weeks or even months between their creations? Having the sheer gall to seriously believe 3D art is "just moving some sliders" is an incredible insult to the enormous amount of skill, effort, and time that 3D artists put in to their work.

If the issue is about cited sources, why is this standard not applied to literally anything else on the site? And no, listing "Stable Diffusion" and the prompt doesn't count as giving credit.

Do I, as a writer, have to list the etymology of every word that appears in my stories? I didn't create them or give them meaning. On an abstract level all I did was 'pose' the words by putting them in an order that made them more than the sum of their parts, much like arranging models or vertices to create a scene. I didn't create the English language, and many of its words were in turn stolen from other languages.

I know I'm basically a nobody on IB, and the site will continue without me, so they are unlikely to care; even so, even though doesn't affect me personally, if IB doesn't backtrack on this policy I will cease posting here and hide everything on my account. If I can get even one additional person to become aware of this and spread the word further, I'll take that as a victory.

If IB truly believes that "We consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority", then they need to stop trying to suppress the freedom of artistic expression of 3D artists on the site.

Viewed:	73 times
Added:	5 months, 4 weeks ago 02 May 2025 02:02 CEST

12 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

VarraTheVap

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

The comparison with GenAI does not reaaally work. The disk size of an image generator leaves only few bytes per training image. That means Gen AI has "learned" the essence of art itself from the billions of input images. Therefore it does not produce you an output from a handful of sources, let alone one source that would be attributable.
Hence why it's mandatory to provide the source of the generator itself instead.

However, I agree that 3D works where effort is visible, should stay... It appears like they are currently a bit stricter than E621 even which does forbids SecondLife screenshots, but doesn't have anything explicit for 3D work except the general quality-baseline as a minimum (which IB on the other hand does not have and would remove a lot of normal art if it existed).

Codelizard

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 4 weeks ago by Owner

@ VarraTheVap

"	Therefore it does not produce you an output from a handful of sources, let alone one source that would be attributable.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend for a moment that I agree with this. How does this not still hold for 3D work? How can a modeler be expected to credit every single person who has ever worked on every asset in their render? They may not have any good way to find out that the model they used as a base was in turn edited by someone else, who started with a different base model, and then the rigging was someone else's work entirely...

Like, okay, we can't possibly credit everyone involved in a GenAI dataset, so we don't expect it. Sure, fair enough - but why does 3D work not get the same pass? How can we possibly put the burden of citing every source of every asset used in the entire scene on a 3D artist when we DON'T do the same thing for AI directors? Especially when IB's stance is that a derivative model still is not counted as "your work"?

I'm fine with IB saying "GenAI pieces only need to cite the model used" - what's insane is for them to then turn around and start nuking 3D artists' galleries with zero warning because they can't know for sure where every asset in the render came from.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 4 weeks ago by Owner

@ Codelizard

And, keep in mind, Reaper's official position on this is that it's a concern about originality and uniqueness.

A model like the one used by our mutual friend, which runs afoul of this new enforcement because it wasn't built from scratch, is considered to be more generic and less original than an AI image.

We've all seen what AI images look like. They all look the same. According to Reaper, they're "unique" because the AI will spit out something different every time, but us with a reasonable and logical understanding of uniqueness don't see uniqueness in AI generations. Sure, it's technically a different image than the last one the machine spat out, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It's not a new, unique creation. It's certainly not an original creation, having been necessarily derived from the works of countless others - and, unlike a derivative work made by a human, that derivation does not add any artistic value to the equation. I could draw a moustache on Mona Lisa and have created something more unique and original than any AI image.

There's a double standard at play here. Reaper wants art to be original and unique, unless it's the specific type of "art" that he prefers, in which case it doesn't need to be original or unique, nor is it held to the same standards of citation as the sort of art he clearly has a grudge against.

Codelizard

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 4 weeks ago by Owner

@ BottleOfSake

"	they're "unique" because the AI will spit out something different every time

I could write a script that generates random numbers, guaranteed to spit out something different every time. That doesn't make it artistic.

If the argument he's making is that the same models used by different 3D artists produce the same result, that exact same argument can be thrown at GenAI too; it's not literally the same image but it's all in the same style.

Literally every argument GR has made is undermined by "Then why do you allow GenAI on IB?" - because you're correct, this is a flagrantly obvious double standard. I could potentially follow his reasoning on some of his comments except that allowing GenAI on IB contradicts all of them. Whether it's uniqueness, credit, originality, variability, or whatever, GenAI fails every single one of those even harder than 3D art ever possibly could, so there is no sound argument for (effectively) banning 3D art but keeping GenAI submissions.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

@ Codelizard

"	Codelizard wrote:
	I could write a script that generates random numbers, guaranteed to spit out something different every time. That doesn't make it artistic.

Well, it's certainly closer to art than AI generation, anyway. Mostly because it actually required a human to put in a modicum of effort to get the result.

GreenReaper

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

@ Codelizard

The thing is, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There are things that almost all 3D artists could do to give credit to the creators of the major components of the characters and props that they use - which might lead to further information about the details of that component - but they're almost universally not doing them, and so are implicitly claiming that all of the work is theirs.

This is a general issue with 3D art, at least on Inkbunny. It was part of the issue with AI here, too, until we got enough staff to make a good start at addressing it - people either didn't say it was AI at all, or didn't specify a model (which may provide the sourcing you were looking for, assuming you're OK to download LAION-5B or whatever applies to the model in question) or the prompts or LoRAs used (which might otherwise be used to violate other AI policies).

I won't deny that we've been bad at enforcing expectations around 3D art for even longer, which is why this didn't come up until the new staff came on board.

Codelizard

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 4 weeks ago by Owner

@ GreenReaper

"	There are things that almost all 3D artists could do to give credit to the creators of the major components of the characters and props that they use

Like what? For comparison, InkBunny's policy on what a GenAI director has to do is extremely clear: https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/ACP#AI You have provided directors a bulleted list of what keywords to use and what additional information must be supplied.

And yet, there is nothing on that page as guidance for 3D artwork. Absolutely nothing. How can people be expected to provide credit to a standard that isn't even mentioned, let alone detailed? You explicitly state this requirement separately for remixes and mashups of audio - if it is this important for 3D art, then it needs to be stated explicitly in your own ACP.

Furthermore, your very own 'derivative works' section has an allowance for "when it is clear you put in significant effort to change or enhance that work". Why is this not extended to 3D artists making changes to models?

GreenReaper

5 months, 3 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Owner

@ Codelizard

"

How can people be expected to provide credit to a standard that isn't even mentioned, let alone detailed? [...] Furthermore, your very own 'derivative works' section has an allowance for "when it is clear you put in significant effort to change or enhance that work". Why is this not extended to 3D artists making changes to models?

Without reference to the original, it isn't possible to "clearly" know whether the change is "significant" or "superficial", therefore credit was implicitly required. That said, we're making that explicit in the forthcoming policy update for renders. Draft wording:

"

When showing a model not created entirely by you, the model and all components thereof must be attributed to their author/source, along with a notation of the work you completed on the model. This can be contained in another submission featuring the model and all the required details. You may link to this in each submission, or a journal to further consolidate your resource list, so long as it is easily identified.

This is likely to boil down to a single line linking to model references + incidental third-party models.

Codelizard

5 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ GreenReaper

"	Without reference to the original, it isn't possible to "clearly" know whether the change is "significant" or "superficial", therefore credit was implicitly required.

This is true for ALL derivative works and is not unique to 3D art. I can't tell for sure if a "remix" is actually a remix or a straight rip without listening to the original. In your own ACP on Remixes you list crediting the source as an explicit requirement.

I can't tell for sure if a recolor is an actual re-coloring or a quick hue change without seeing the original picture. Your own ACP does NOT list a crediting requirement for this, even though for Remixes/Mashups, it does. This is inconsistent between different sections of your policy.

I can't tell for sure if an AI-assisted piece was 'assisted' or a paintover of something or partially generated without seeing the underlying image that was used. Your ACP explicitly requires that the source images be provided. Credit is not "implicitly" required here, you state it outright as a requirement.

And as for 3D, the ACP contains no sections on 3D art at all at the time I am writing this comment, possibly from the incorrect assumption that they counted as screenshots.

Your draft is a big step in the right direction by explicitly laying out the requirements 3D artists have to meet. Please make sure the final wording is more in line with the rest of the ACP, which (other than for recolors) explicitly states what is needed. If this had been there in the first place, none of this mess would have happened.

BottleOfSake

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

Edited 5 months, 4 weeks ago by Owner

@ GreenReaper

"	GreenReaper wrote:
	The thing is, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

You, personally, made it all or nothing when you decided not to enforce your own policy on derivative work.

You, personally, made it all or nothing when you decided to specifically target 3D artists.

You, personally, made it all or nothing when you continually refused to answer why nobody else is subject to this same level of scrutiny.

"	GreenReaper wrote:
	There are things that almost all 3D artists could do to give credit to the creators of the major components of the characters and props that they use

The artists are the creators. We're not talking here about people who use models out of the standard database in Gmod or SFM. We're not talking about people who get into VRChat and just take a screenshot of whatever's happening. We're talking about people who spend hours taking a model, released to the public specifically for the purposes of modification with no attribution required, and turning that into something of their own. Hours more creating environments for that model, staging, and posing. Hours more rendering. You are the only one who seems to be under the impression that those are the same thing as each other. They are not.

"	GreenReaper wrote:
	and so are implicitly claiming that all of the work is theirs.

It is theirs. Full stop. Legally, and by your own content policy. It's theirs. There is no debate on this. A derivative work, by law, is fully and completely the copyright of the creator of the derivative work, not the creator of the work it's based on. Your policy, which you presumably wrote yourself, is that a derivative work is allowed as long as it is "sufficiently unique", which all 3D art affected by this change in policy is.

Derivative work, including the art made by the artists you personally have chosen to persecute, is entirely and exclusively the work of the artist creating the derivative work. United States copyright law agrees with me. Your own policy agrees with me. And yet, you expect 3D artists to be held to a standard that not even the Supreme Court of the United States would hold them to. A standard to which you do not hold any other type of artist.

"	GreenReaper wrote:
	which may provide the sourcing you were looking for,

Not to the level you have demanded for real artists. You expect 3D artists to do far more work looking for sources than any other type of artist is subjected to. This is the equivalent of demanding that I, as a digital artist, cite every person who worked on every brush I use in a piece. That I, as an author, cite every person who contributed to the development of the Calibri font.
But you do not ask AI artists to cite every person their machine model was trained on. This is an understandably ludicrous and impossible task for them. But you demand that 3D artists do this.

You have been given every opportunity to admit fault. Admit that you were mistaken. At every turn you have doubled down on your hatred of 3D renderers. Of artists. Of people who actually contributed something of substance to your site. If you'd prefer that your website is devoid of artists, then by all means, proceed as you are. If you would prefer to be left with a shell of a site populated with nothing but unoriginal AI slop, by all means go ahead.

You have done nothing but disrespect people who worked hard to make your website what it has been. You have belittled them. You have told them they are not welcome here.

So, we'll listen. You don't want anyone here who cares about the work they do. Fine. We don't need you. You need us. We will gladly take our business elsewhere. We will gladly watch as your site collapses. We are not the captive audience you think we are. We are not the idiots you think we are. And we will not be treated as if we are. You will watch as your own actions drive away the very people you rely on. And, somehow, you'll look back and wonder why nobody warned you.

Foxon

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

GreenReaper has had multiple controversial takes. He shouldn't even be a mod at this point... That's just insane.

Codelizard

5 months, 4 weeks ago

link

@ Foxon

This is my first exposure to him since most of my interaction with IB is to just crosspost here, so I'll take your word for it.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Los Angeles Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.