Welcome to Inkbunny...

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

🧊 Inkbunny rule adjustment suggestion

by AutoSnep

It seems to me that the root of numerous issues people have with Inkbunny rules is basically a single problem.

Let's have look:

● Complaints about 3D rules:
   ● Impossible to use public domain content
   ● Impossible to use intentionally anonymous content
   ● Impossible to use bought models
   ● Impossible to find the creator of every tiny rock
   ● Examples:
      ●

ItsANewDay

— gallery nuked
●

poofybunx

— gallery partially nuked
●

Hornybunny

— 3D content nuked
      ● (TODO: add more)

● Complaints about attribution:
   ● "AI rules are more permissive"
   ● Examples:
      ●

TheGiantHamster

— submissions with backgrounds nuked
●

KammyKay

— developing a whole new Inkbunny competitor
●

AutoSnep

— I want to use public domain content as inputs for AI but can't

The common theme is: following content use permission rules to the maximum is impractical.

Now, the question is, what is the purpose of these rules? I see several options:

● Making sure the website adheres to the laws.
   ● Almost any fanart, commercial or not, is illegal, period. Copyright disallows it. So, the reason should be "is there a risk of getting into legal troubles" rather than "is it technically illegal".
   ● For each case listed above, let's ask a simple question: how likely that someone will sue the website admins? Will Disney actually hunt down images where their backgrounds are used? Will tiny asset modelers go after everyone who uses their assets without attribution?
   ● An open question is where's the line between contacting Metallica and not getting a response vs trying to get in contact with an obscure modeler who's been dead for 10 years. The existing rules already put a distinction between "personal" characters and "public" characters, even though both are copyrighted, so it won't be something new.

● Not angering content creators.
   ● Some people may say that after AI, it's a moot point. Still, this reason has frequently been quoted, and I believe it's one of the major reasons referencing artist names in AI prompts is disallowed.
   ● For each case listed above, let's ask a simple question: will the creator be angry if he's not referenced? I find it unlikely creators releasing content into public domain, intentionally publishing something anonymously, or modeling a tiny rock will get angry if a model is used and shared. Artists who died or disappeared years ago won't come back from the dead either.

● We don't like lazy low-quality content.
   ● I'd say it's a weird reason to have, considering how much MS Paint content exists on Inkbunny, but it isn't uncommon for websites to prohibit specific problematic sources, for example Second Life.
   ● This point is purely arbitrary, so asking admins what they think is the only way (hello

GreenReaper

Kadm

).

So, here's my suggestion on how to adjust the rules:

● Put as much effort as you can into attributing and asking for content reuse.
● If you fail to find the original source, or to get in contact with the author (no longer active, dead, unresponsive), list your failures in the description.
● If the original content creator later asks for attribution or asks to remove content, do as they ask.
● The amount of extra content you add must be substantial.
● If you abuse the permissiveness, for example you regularly get reported, or fake failure to get in contact etc., and in general cause too many issues, then you lose the right.
● If Metallica doesn't respond to your query, it doesn't mean you can remix Metallica.

Also, ideally, there would be a checkmark when posting such submissions so that they're clearly marked with a warning like "If your content isn't attributed, click here".

P.S. Also, ffs, animation should be classified as a major addition to the source. It's silly that retexturing is considered art and animation isn't (read these comments).

Viewed:	180 times
Added:	3 months, 3 weeks ago 26 Dec 2025 08:43 CET

19 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

Hornybunny

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

My blender pics were deleted in April. I also linked back to the source of any model I used, including the ones I bought.

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ Hornybunny

What was the problem? Is using bought models disallowed?

Hornybunny

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ AutoSnep

They were considered screenshots and the made by you/for you rule.

Kamisama7986

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

yes we all know the rules here are retarded. I got mine nuked because an open source ai generator wasn't open source enough for them

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

Edited 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Owner

@ Kamisama7986

There're advantages to this. I do enjoy enforced sharing of prompts and techniques because I get to steal learn from experience of others. 😁 The full reproducibility requirement is annoying, but it's an acceptable compromise to be allowed to post AI-assisted images on a website which is permissive in regard to subject matter.

We saw what unrestricted AI content caused on DeviantArt and ArtStation, so I'd consider Inkbunny managing to avoid that level of drama and exodus a success.

You know what the best argument against full reproducibility of AI workflows is? Using techniques like those enabled by Photoshop plugins, which rely on generating hundreds of inpaints as the main process, with no practical way to reproduce the whole workflow, except for maybe recording a video of it. And you know why I gave up arguing against reproducibility? Because after all this time, there's not a single AI director on Inkbunny doing that.
________________

Don't admins allow fixing your workflow if you genuinely mess up once? You lose your old submissions, but you can post more.

"Your AI generator doesn't provide seeds" is admittedly too technical for many people, especially those just starting to experiment with AI, so ideally there would be a guide on Inkbunny wiki on how to choose. There was a group of Inkbunny moderators, AI enthusiasts and AI haters discussing adding better information to the rules, among other things, so that there's no confusion about what the hell "open-source" means, with examples and all, but it went nowhere. No idea why.

Lizzyroo

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

AI can not hold any Copyright laws at all. due to it being AI. It doesn't matter if it is a script, artwork, movie, whatever. Copyright laws do not apply to AI period. you can't have a lawsuit put agiasnt you or you can't put a lawsuit agiasnt another for Copyrights. As AI doesn't apply to Copyright laws.
It is something USA has already said before that Copyright laws do not apply to AI for Scripts, artwork, movies, ect. Same with UK they said the same thing pretty much.

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ Lizzyroo

AI-generated content can't be copyrighted, but it can totally violate copyrights and trademarks. It may seem counter-intuitive, but that's the way it is.

Lizzyroo

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ AutoSnep

yes, yes it does violate copyrights and trademarks. But, since it being AI, it still can't hold any copyright laws. its kindof a catch 22. can't sue cause its AI, can't sue someone cause your AI work was stolen cause its AI.

TanukiLad

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

Fan art is not illegal, just as taking photos in public places is not. You can even copyright photos of copyrighted things. You're totally wrong here.

With that said, I do find this place is more about harassing artists now than allowing for them. If they do it enough another site will be made. This site was made when FurAffinity mass banned artists.

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ TanukiLad

Your "totally wrong" judgement is totally disconnected from reality. 😜

Fanart can be copyrighted. But copyrightable ≠ immune from Disney and Nintendo. You still infringe their copyrights and trademarks, no way around that. You can try fair use, but it isn't automatic, you actually have to prove every of the 4 points. And good luck proving fair use while selling Pickachu porn fan game. 😁

Photos are a separate matter. You can slap a copyright on them, sure. But if a country doesn't provide freedom-of-panorama, good luck finding a use for that copyright. 😆

"	With that said, I do find this place is more about harassing artists now than allowing for them.

Looks like the only thing that changed is that Inkbunny decided to enforce rules which have been ignored for many years. I can see why admins want to do that, but I wish there were more attempts to find a middle ground. 😒

TheDeinonychus

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ AutoSnep

Disney and Nintendo are probably bad examples to use, as they are overly litigious when it comes to anything even remotely close to something they own the copyright on (remember, Nintendo sued a grocery store owner for naming his store aft himself, and his name was Mario).

Fanart sits in a bit of a legal 'grey area', where the creator owns the rights to the work, but not the content of the work. Most corporate entities don't care, as it's viewed as the artist selling (or freely distributing) their effort rather than the content, and the volume of said effort rarely can ever be considered competition.

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ TheDeinonychus

That is the correct take. 👍 It's illegal, but (almost) nobody cares, due to various reasons.

Also, fuck Disney in particular. They're one of the main reasons we're stuck with copyright of virtually infinite length worldwide. 😡

FauxPika

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

I wasn't even allowed to use a rando image for a thumb, even though I altered it. :/ It's like, ok, I get you want to cover your legal ass but how far as we going to take this? Are we going to apply these rules to avatars too?

AutoSnep

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ FauxPika

Huh, yeah, this is weirdly inconsistent. 🤔 I'd expect thumbnails to have roughly the same restrictions as avatars, seeing how they're tiny images, so are almost guaranteed to be covered by fair use. Even Wikipedia with its crazy strict restrictions on the use of copyrighted materials allows using small images when there's a valid reason (as in, almost everywhere).

FauxPika

3 months, 3 weeks ago

link

@ AutoSnep

that's actually a really good point about wiki. Wtf lol. everyone's going to have to draw their own avatar in MS paint XD. Wonder if I starting drawing horrid doodles, if I'd get shit canned.

MyNameIsOver20charac

3 months, 1 week ago

link

"	Will Disney actually hunt down images where their backgrounds are used?

Dunno. Will Nintendo? Heck yeah.

AlyssaKamber

2 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Admittedly, KammyKay isn't developing an InkBunny replacement because he has problems with the restrictions on AI, but rather because he has problems with AI as a thing. He'd like there to be an alt site for artists who don't want to be around AI gens.

AutoSnep

2 months, 2 weeks ago

link

@ AlyssaKamber

KammyKay's complaints go beyond "I hate AI". He's recently discovered that "rules for 3D content suck", another excuse for his site's existence. 😛 Check out his most recent journal, Three Years of ai_generated — The Double Standard.

What happened to his website anyway? All journals about it have disappeared. 🤔

AlyssaKamber

2 months, 2 weeks ago

link

@ AutoSnep

Beta test run finished, now it's being prepared for an actual launch in a few months.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.