Welcome to Inkbunny...

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

I suppose this is technically a victory.

It took 7 months, but InkBunny has finally provided an official update on the 3D rendering saga: https://inkbunny.net/j/579097

You probably missed it (I know I did) because sitewide announcements don't provide any notifications to users. If you did notice, it's probably because you're watching one or more of the various 3D artists who got their galleries hidden for not adhering to the rules that InkBunny literally just wrote down within the last week - they likely posted their own journal about it.

This policy is still completely contradictory to have on a website that permits GenAI images.

But at least they've written it down somewhere publicly-visible.

3D artists who wish to remain on IB (not very many, as far as I can tell) now know what is required of them to avoid administrative action.

While FA does allow 3D renders that otherwise follow its rules, there's no video support. To the best of my knowledge Weasyl is the same. So I imagine the best bet for most of these artists is e621.

My demands were for IB to post an official announcement (which they did) and update the AUP (which they have). So, thank you for clarifying your stance, InkBunny.

I was GOING to unhide my gallery and simply not post anything new... but as it turns out, the mass gallery editing tools have an option to hide all selected submissions, but not to unhide. I'm not going to go through 100+ submissions and unhide them individually and manually for a website with open and undisguised contempt for a (former) segment of its user base, so never mind. My gallery remains hidden. Update: A staff member for IB assisted me in unhiding everything. The help is appreciated.

The number of 3D artists who are vocally unhappy about this speaks for itself. I'm sure IB would allow them to post AI generated versions of the same poses and characters though. It's not like there's an obvious double standard endorsed by a site admin where GenAI can get away with merely using a specific keyword but 3D art can't or anything like that.

You can still find me on FA at

Codelizard or Weasyl at

Codelizard.

Viewed:	76 times
Added:	1 month ago 01 Dec 2025 06:21 CET

16 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

Telain

1 month ago

link

We can provide that capability temporarily. Please reply when you're done unhiding what you wish to.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

@ Telain

I am done unhiding my gallery. Thank you for the courteous and helpful response, genuinely. I know my journal is quite hostile, and you didn't have to do anything to assist, but you did anyway, and I appreciate that.

Is there some specific reason that the ability to bulk unhide is not available to users by default? Was it abused in the past?

Telain

1 month ago

link

@ Codelizard

I'm not sure, but this did make me want to ask.

Telain

1 month ago

link

@ Telain

I asked and confirmed what I assumed. Since unhiding for the first time is also publishing, it's basically flood protection.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

@ Telain

Thank you for checking and for passing along the explanation. That makes sense since when a submission is halfway submitted, it's effectively in that 'hidden' state, which can be observed by checking your own gallery during the final stages of submitting something.

However, when I was unhiding my gallery, I had two options available: "Set visible" and "Set visible (no notify)". I chose the latter option so as not to spam people with 100+ notifications. Is there some reason that users cannot have just the second option available to them for bulk gallery editing?

Telain

1 month ago

link

@ Codelizard

Likely technical limitations and there hasn't been a pressing need to enable it more globally. I think (just assuming) initial publication would also notify regardless, and if you haven't edited the submission file itself 'set visible' wouldn't notify. That's basically how unhiding a single submission works when given the option to notify or not, iirc.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

@ Telain

I see. Thank you for the explanation!

Rakuen

1 month ago

link

It's a bit strange that people keep comparing this to the AI images. There's really not much similarity between them.

In any case, I would make a small clarification. AI images can not get away with merely using a specific keyword; AI images must provide prompts, model information, seeds and use open-source models. Ironically one group of people says Inkbunny is too lenient with AI and the AI users keep complaining that Inkbunny is too strict with AI. Many AI images are removed for not providing proper documentation.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

@ Rakuen

"	Rakuen wrote:
	It's a bit strange that people keep comparing this to the AI images. There's really not much similarity between them.

It's because of the justifications being presented for the differences in how these two types of media are treated, which you allude to in the second half of your comment:

"	Rakuen wrote:
	AI images can not get away with merely using a specific keyword; AI images must provide prompts, model information, seeds and use open-source models.

My remark was hyperbolic. The point remains, however: AI directors can simply credit a model, trained upon thousands and thousands of images. There is no attribution requirement for each of those images, specifically because doing so would be an absurd requirement. Yet for 3D artists, (from the ACP) "each resource which has a meaningful impact on the output must be attributed to its author or source, ideally with a link, along with a brief description of any work done to customise it."

One group of users merely has to say "this collection of images" (and the prompt). The other must provide an exhaustive list of sources. I assume the logic behind this is that an open AI model will provide its own list of sources and attributions. I also assume that this is why the new ACP says 3D artists can create their own list somewhere and link to it, instead of having to include it in every single upload. This is a good: it encourages properly crediting 3D asset creators, a goal I can get behind.

However, there is ambiguity in the "meaningful impact on the output" wording - what defines 'meaningful impact'? I hope we can agree that character models should be credited. Background locations? Sure. Furniture and props? Getting excessive, but okay. But materials? Shaders? Textures? Where does it stop? There is an example in the ACP suggesting that even a weather effect would have to be attributed.

And if someone uses a model, which was made by editing another model, in turn from another... how far up the chain is the user expected to go? Let's assume I have a model that was made for me, that I commissioned a modeler to make. Do I have to go check with the modeler to get an exhaustive list of every texture, effect or other asset they used? A huge burden has been placed on 3D artists that nobody else has to deal with. Digital artists don't have to credit the creators of any custom brushes they used, for example.

In short, the reworded ACP is an improvement, but I believe more work is needed.

---

Another reason for comparisons to GenAI comes from this:

"3D renders are therefore only permitted where they depict at least one unique or materially customised 3D model that is either your own creation, or created specifically for you, constituting a focal point of the work"

IB is perfectly fine with users making use of GenAI models they didn't make, to take (a lot of) assets that were not created by them or created specifically for them, in order to create something new with them. This same courtesy is not extended to 3D renderers.

---

Another justification I've seen concerns repetitive content, which AI is far worse about. The 1000th AI image of Renamon standing around naked may not be identical to any of the previous 999, but is that not still repetitive? Thankfully, the new ACP gives better guidelines on avoiding running afoul of this for renders (no more than 3 angles of the same shot).

"	Rakuen wrote:
	Ironically one group of people says Inkbunny is too lenient with AI and the AI users keep complaining that Inkbunny is too strict with AI. Many AI images are removed for not providing proper documentation.

I can sympathize on that front. You can please some of the users some of the time but you can't please all of the users all of the time.

I actually think IB's AI policy (must tag 'ai_generated', list the model & include the prompt) is fine. What upsets me is how an art medium with a much higher skill ceiling and barrier to entry is subject to heavier requirements.

Rakuen

1 month ago

link

@ Codelizard

I'm sympathetic to your position and I did push against some aspects of the reworked rule. I also played around with 3D modelling many years ago, so I know what skills it takes. Remember that not all moderators necessarily agree with all rules but we do need to enforce them.

It is not easy to draft rules which will please everyone and achieve all the goals they need to achieve. In this case, the goal was to bring clarity to the rules which were being enforced via an outdated section that was written when the main concern was things like Second Life screenshots. There are really talented 3D artists in the community whom I would like to encourage. There are also people that take models other people have made and barely even pose them. It's tough to come up with rules that target the latter but not the former, especially since sometimes even traditional art submissions have no artistic value. But at least we can focus on crediting models, although I have insisted that modelling and rendering good scenes are two separate skills.

The Inkbunny rules are not set in stone and can be changed. A more constructive path might be for several skilled 3D artists to propose and justify specific changes to the rules which would be more acceptable but also address concerns of model ownership and poor quality submissions.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

Edited 1 month ago by Owner

@ Rakuen

I'm a site mod on FA (though I am not speaking as one here, nor do my comments represent FA), so I'm familiar with a lot of this. It's why my biggest gripe was always that until about a week ago, these rules weren't publicly stated. Without even knowing what rules they are subject to, how can users adhere to them, much less discuss their merits and problems? This was the exact same mistake that FA made in 2024 when they began interpreting an old rule in a new way, in heavy-handed manner without warning or prior notice. It was disappointing to see IB - which typically benefits from FA's controversial choices and mistakes - make the exact same error.

The recent ACP update addresses this, and I feel like that brings IB 90% of the way to a working solution.

"	Rakuen wrote:
	although I have insisted that modelling and rendering good scenes are two separate skills.

I agree fully. And I think that someone who uses premade models (with attribution, naturally) can still demonstrate a lot of artistic talent with good posing, lighting, camera work, and so on. This new policy comes across as very dismissive of those skills, perhaps as collateral damage due to your other statement:

"	Rakuen wrote:
	There are also people that take models other people have made and barely even pose them. It's tough to come up with rules that target the latter but not the former

Yes. It is a difficult problem, and I don't have a perfect solution in hand to offer for it. I think it requires some recognition that modeling and posing/animating are different skills. For example, a turntable animation of a model you made has artistic merit. A turntable of a model someone else made does not. But, a detailed animation of someone else's models that sets a scene and has proper posing and lighting does, in my mind, have artistic merit, and should be permitted. Codifying that into a rule, however, is very difficult.

Gauging artistic merit is easy with extreme cases like MS Paint scribbles or t-posing models in a void. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line is always blurry.

I do hope IB is able to engage with 3D artists to get more direct feedback and iron out these final issues. I'm not in the "burn it all down" camp. I consider an ideal outcome here to be that IB ends up with a policy that 3D artists find acceptable. IMO, IB is much closer to that than it was two weeks ago, but still isn't there yet.

BottleOfSake

1 month ago

link

Edited 1 month ago by Owner

@ Rakuen

People keep comparing it to AI because the justification given for the policy on 3D art is an equally valid criticism of AI generations posted to IB, but AI is treated infinitely more leniently.

AI generations require nowhere near the level of scrutiny (nor any amount of skill to produce, for that matter, in contrast with the extremely challenging field that is 3D art) that actual 3D artwork does, but the justification for 3D art being held to such a high standard of evidence is "to prevent the flooding of the site with thousands of nearly-identical images with only slight variations between them". This is literally exactly what bulk AI posts are, but users uploading AI images are not required to list every artist whose work was part of the model that generated the images. They're straight up not even required to cite anything of substance beyond a model and tagging the post as AI. For 3D art to be treated equally, you would expect 3D art to require only a citation of the program used, and to be tagged as 3D.

For some reason, however, 3D artists are literally required to name every single person who has ever touched a vertex on any model appearing anywhere in the image. Even the example given in the new rule post declares that snow in the background is enough of a contribution to require an individual, unique credit for something that is almost certainly so generic as to be entirely anonymous and uncreditable. You lot know that this is unfeasible. Someone on your team knows that 3D artists cannot reasonably be expected to comply with a policy that requires them to cite even microscopic background elements, when no other type of content is held to that level of scrutiny.

2D artists, for example, do not need to cite every person who made every brush or filter they used. They do not need to cite all the references they used. These would be obviously ridiculous demands, and so they are not required. So, why are the equivalents required of 3D artists?

I know why. It's because someone on your team wants 3D art to be banned from the site entirely, but doesn't have the balls to go through with it properly. I'd respect your team a lot more if they were willing to come out and just say 3D art is not allowed here.

Foxon

1 month ago

link

@ BottleOfSake

Not only does AI inherently go against creators of all kinds, it's fascistic in how it functions by being trained (without consent) on tens of thousands of images of other art. Meanwhile, 3D which requires skill and a lot of effort is being censored.

Even if the AI wasn't in the question, that 3D is being pushed back on at all is a huge issue. For a site that is for artists and creators, 3D is a medium that should be embraced. If anything, it should be generative AI that should be removed but it isn't. It's morally opposed to creatives and hypocritical.

It's clear that someone has a grudge against 3D work, be it Blender or SFM stuff, while being perfectly okay with generative AI. It's a moderation issue. Artists have to constantly hop between websites because the moderation ends up screwing artists in some way, shape, or form. Only X posted here, Y isn't allowed here. Z doesn't have proper uploading tools for writing. It's all a mess. Inkbunny isn't solely to blame for it, but it's being handled horribly.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

Edited 1 month ago by Owner

@ Foxon

There's another factor here: Let's say that I wanted to pick up 3D art. Where would I start? Would I dive straight into the deep end by creating my own models from scratch? Of course not. I'd start by taking some premade models and experimenting with them so that I can focus on learning posing, lighting, expressions, animation, etc. This would be an integral part of the learning process - a step that IB expects people to skip over.

Modeling and rigging are two separate and very difficult skills to learn. There are creators who do just those things and then make their models available for people to use with attribution. When a 3D artist takes these premade assets, the creation that is their own work is the resulting image or animation - the camera angle, the lighting, the expressions, the animations, and so on. That work and effort is not diminished by being done on a model someone else made, and it takes a ton of effort. And yet, IB expects 3D artists to be able to spin ALL of these plates.

I as a writer am effectively using a premade asset (the English language) where the value of my work comes in how I pose and arrange its parts (the words). I'm not required to write primarily in constructed languages of my own creation.

2D artists on IB don't need to create their own brushes or drawing tools (they can even slap an AI-generated background in as long as they tag 'ai_assisted' and state the background is AI, or have AI finish their sketch if they use 'ai_generated').

Music writers don't need to create their own instruments. GenAI directors don't have to create the LORA or any of the images used in it.

Yet, 3D artists are subject to an extra requirement that nobody else has to deal with: that at least one focal model was created (or "materially customised") entirely by them. If IB dropped that requirement, we would be approaching a reasonable compromise.

Foxon

1 month ago

link

@ Codelizard

There's a lot of what I call SFM "slop". A lot of pre-used assets, environments, sounds... they just take those and mash them together. You start somewhere after all. But so many people do just this forever. I know a few people that started on SFM and eventually improved in so many ways they ended up moving to Blender and doing almost everything custom. Without SFM and those entry points they wouldn't be where they are.

Animation is a hell of a thing to learn and you can't just tell someone to do everything from scratch at the beginning. You wouldn't ask every baker or cook to do EVERYTHING from scratch, especially starting out. Even professionals don't do that. It's a silly rule... but then allowing AI with no regulation is just a slap in the face.

Codelizard

1 month ago

link

@ Foxon

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

As the saying goes, sucking at something is the first step to being kinda good at something. Some people suck forever but that's true of every art medium. Your point that some people wouldn't be able to move to Blender without first starting on SFM is exactly what I was trying to get at.

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.