Where's the line?

[Otto26]

Where is the line on original art?

Not a simple question and not one that will have a definitive answer. It will boil down to opinion. My curiosity is piqued because of my recent efforts to submit an image I created by combining and altering licensed artwork. It was rejected by the site because the components of it were not my original work. Fair enough, that's a reasonable interpretation of the site rules and the owners of the site are definitely the ones who would know what the interpretation should be.

But....

If that interpretation is applied equally then shouldn't a lot of the 3D art on the site be rejected? I could recreate my image by going in to Second Life. I would be using the art of other people (ship, ocean, skin on the model), with their permission. How is that functionally different from the case above? There are more than a few published works on this site that look as though they were created in Second Life or an equivalent 3D environment.

How about I go into a modelling program to recreate my image. I purchase a model from one artist, a ship from another, and an ocean with a night sky from a third. I put it all together to create an image and submit it to the site. There are published artworks on the site that meet this standard.

How about I go over to DeviantArt and pay an artist to create the bare bones of the image I want and then I take a picture of that art and apply some filters? I own the photograph, I own the art the photograph depicts, I altered the photograph to produce an artistic effect. Again, there are many altered images of photographs published on this site that could meet this definition.

So, back to the question: Where do you set the line? How much of an image does the artist have to have created for it to be considered original?

 

[gsnowpainter]

Most copyright laws state that one can take a work of art and alter it sufficiently to make it a new, yet similar piece of art. It all depends on local and on international copyright laws. It is common practice among illustrators to incorporate known artwork and change it, for satire or as a tribute to the original artist. At no time are public domain images included in that.

It might be helpful if involved monitors who make the decision, were more familiar with art practices. If an algorhytm makes the decions, we could all be in for difficult times.

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

Where is the line on original art?

Not a simple question and not one that will have a definitive answer. It will boil down to opinion. My curiosity is piqued because of my recent efforts to submit an image I created by combining and altering licensed artwork. It was rejected by the site because the components of it were not my original work. Fair enough, that's a reasonable interpretation of the site rules and the owners of the site are definitely the ones who would know what the interpretation should be.

But....

If that interpretation is applied equally then shouldn't a lot of the 3D art on the site be rejected? I could recreate my image by going in to Second Life. I would be using the art of other people (ship, ocean, skin on the model), with their permission. How is that functionally different from the case above? There are more than a few published works on this site that look as though they were created in Second Life or an equivalent 3D environment.

How about I go into a modelling program to recreate my image. I purchase a model from one artist, a ship from another, and an ocean with a night sky from a third. I put it all together to create an image and submit it to the site. There are published artworks on the site that meet this standard.

How about I go over to DeviantArt and pay an artist to create the bare bones of the image I want and then I take a picture of that art and apply some filters? I own the photograph, I own the art the photograph depicts, I altered the photograph to produce an artistic effect. Again, there are many altered images of photographs published on this site that could meet this definition.

So, back to the question: Where do you set the line? How much of an image does the artist have to have created for it to be considered original?

It depends on the definition of creative, and copyright. If I purchase art from MollyBolly88 on Deviantart, I have paid for that original art, and can be used as I wish. If I create a graphic using Daz3d, I have bought the graphics to create that scene, the artist has been paid. If that image is used in say a book, and it sell over 55,000 copies then I need to purchase a license from the artist. But my interpretation creating that scene is my original art, and as such is copyright.

 

[Lustopia]

Collage art has a long and somewhat glorious history.

I grok that violating copyrights is uncool, but the world is full of free images that long to be tacked or melded together into something that is transformed into a sum greater than it's parts. As a working artist who often uses digital collage of digital manipulated images (by hand and mouse, no AI (yet)), as a form of personal expression and exploration, I hope not to run afoul of the rules here.
Max Ernst's collages

 

[MiaBabe23]

Alongside the other points above, guess the key issue is what you mention in your post - permission and an original take. I’ve no idea, but presumably if you can prove that you have that, it might be looked at differently compared to using known works where that isn’t given or established?

 

[OffNSFW]

If you have to ask, then just stop whatever you're doing, go get a piece of paper and a marker, and just draw a picture. Enjoy, for a brief moment in this short life were all given, the process of making something completely by your own hand. Do an art.

This is like the 46th thread that's basically the art equivalent of "but what if she didn't exactly say yes, but..." Everybody just wants to hypothetical their way into doing the thing they wanted to do anyway.

 

[jaF0]

Throbber!! Where ya' been?

 

[Aussieguy8]

I guess they are strict on photo manipulation because of how often that is used to create fake porn of people who don't consent to be in porn. So I get a blanket 'no' on photo manipulation because of that.

After all the mods aren't art experts.

 

[Aromeo4]

So my first story contained images created by AI image generator that required my input to create descriptors. It was rejected. I used the attributes of my real life partner displayed in MY photograph who is also MY avatar as descriptors (long curly haired dark brunette Irish woman in a little black dress) the actual photograph was not submitted or manipulated by the algorithm. I was under the impression from the site I used that the resulting image created was MY art work. So I agree with Brianna1960 that the computer program is a tool in the same way a pencil, a paintbrush, or a camera. Compare the image it created with my avatar. It is MY artwork and of a much higher quality then some of the 3D art in the Illustrated category. Do you think we can convince the editors to allow these creations?


[image removed]

 

[jaF0]

" the actual photograph was not submitted "

And therein lies your problem.

 

[Llehlla]

" the actual photograph was not submitted "

And therein lies your problem.

Why not start a new category within the Visual Arts Corner specifically for legally used artwork (AI) that so many are begging to be able to publish here? Then we artists who create our own original art with a pen/pencil/stylus on a screen or paper can have our space, they can have one dedicated to their assemblages, and it will be clear to the viewer how the images were made.
Bonus: we can stop having this conversation!

 

[SixtyBlue]

Why not start a new category within the Visual Arts Corner specifically for legally used artwork (AI) that so many are begging to be able to publish here? Then we artists who create our own original art with a pen/pencil/stylus on a screen or paper can have our space, they can have one dedicated to their assemblages, and it will be clear to the viewer how the images were made.
Bonus: we can stop having this conversation!

While the idea of a separate category for AI-generated artwork might seem like a fair compromise, in practice, it wouldn’t solve the core issues that traditional and digital artists are facing.

1. Visibility and Algorithm Bias – Even if AI art had its own category, there’s no guarantee it would stay contained. Many platforms favour engagement-based algorithms, and AI-generated pieces—often produced in bulk and visually striking—would still flood general feeds, overshadowing traditional and digital artists.
2. Mislabeling and Misuse – AI-generated artwork is often mixed with traditional art, either intentionally or unintentionally. Without strict enforcement, many users would continue posting AI work in general art categories, making moderation an ongoing problem.
3. Devaluing Original Art – The sheer volume of AI art reduces the uniqueness and appreciation of hand-crafted works. Even with a separate category, the perception of art as something anyone can generate in seconds would continue to undermine those who spend years refining their skills.
4. Community Shift – DeviantArt and similar platforms were built on the foundation of human creativity and craftsmanship. AI-generated content being legitimized with its own space still shifts the culture and focus of the site away from human-made art, which is what drew many artists to these platforms in the first place.
5. The Conversation Won’t Stop – Even with separate categories, debates about AI art’s legitimacy, its ethical concerns, and its impact on the art community won’t go away. As long as AI-generated works are mistaken for or directly competing with hand-made pieces, these discussions will persist.

In short, giving AI-generated work its own category doesn’t address the fundamental problem—it just legitimizes and embeds AI art deeper into spaces originally meant for human artists.

 

[jaF0]

Why not start a new category within the Visual Arts Corner specifically for legally used artwork (AI) that so many are begging to be able to publish here?

That's a Laurel decision.

 

[Llehlla]

That's a Laurel decision.

Yes, I understand that. I don’t have access to Laurel though, do I? If I preceded my comment with @Laurel would she see it and read it?

 

[Llehlla]

While the idea of a separate category for AI-generated artwork might seem like a fair compromise, in practice, it wouldn’t solve the core issues that traditional and digital artists are facing.

1. Visibility and Algorithm Bias – Even if AI art had its own category, there’s no guarantee it would stay contained. Many platforms favour engagement-based algorithms, and AI-generated pieces—often produced in bulk and visually striking—would still flood general feeds, overshadowing traditional and digital artists.
2. Mislabeling and Misuse – AI-generated artwork is often mixed with traditional art, either intentionally or unintentionally. Without strict enforcement, many users would continue posting AI work in general art categories, making moderation an ongoing problem.
3. Devaluing Original Art – The sheer volume of AI art reduces the uniqueness and appreciation of hand-crafted works. Even with a separate category, the perception of art as something anyone can generate in seconds would continue to undermine those who spend years refining their skills.
4. Community Shift – DeviantArt and similar platforms were built on the foundation of human creativity and craftsmanship. AI-generated content being legitimized with its own space still shifts the culture and focus of the site away from human-made art, which is what drew many artists to these platforms in the first place sixty.
5. The Conversation Won’t Stop – Even with separate categories, debates about AI art’s legitimacy, its ethical concerns, and its impact on the art community won’t go away. As long as AI-generated works are mistaken for or directly competing with hand-made pieces, these discussions will persist.

In short, giving AI-generated work its own category doesn’t address the fundamental problem—it just legitimizes and embeds AI art deeper into spaces originally meant for human artists.

@SixtyBlue, your points are good ones and reflect an age old debate: when a major shift occurs (usually due to industrial/technological advances and intended to improve efficiency) do we resist the change or go along with it?

Let me make it clear right away that I am, by nature, a resistor of any change that reduces the human fingerprint. I am unequivocally pro-human. I would rather see a pencil on paper drawing, complete with incorrect proportions and skewed perspective, than a “flawless“ image of the “ideal“ person generated by A.I..Have you ever noticed, by the way, that these ideal renderings almost always include exaggerated sexual attributes and are just about as “realistic” as the crude pencil drawing?

This push-and-pull between preservation of the traditional and adoption of the new was played out with the invention of the printing press and during the Industrial Revolution. It changed the reality of warfare to the extent that it is less horrifying to long for the bad old days of the Civil War era battlefield than to accept the dehumanized, video-game mentality with which it is conducted today. We happily let the new move into our homes and our daily lives, and many rely heavily on the latest methods of communication.

The choice is never clear because innovations can be used to improve human life, sometimes significantly decreasing suffering on the individual level and on a global scale. However, the same innovations can and do cause untold damage to people and this planet. Perhaps the worst devastation is the way we pay for these seeming efficiencies with our very humanity. Often, we look at the bill of sale until it is too late.

I agree with you that weeding out A.I. from human made art is already an almost impossible task. Perhaps it is better to make a no exceptions rule that every piece of art (I’m not going to touch the topic of writing here; last time I checked, the folks over at The Author’s Hangout had a terrier grip on the subject and showed no sign of releasing it) must be made by the human hand with an implement designed for the purpose of making marks on a surface itself designed to accept such marks. Jesus!

Regarding the devaluation of human-made anything when a new technology takes its place, thankfully, I see that as temporary. In time, when the thrill of the new has become common place and its deficiencies have shown themselves, there is a renewed appreciation for the previously displaced traditional arts. People see that for all its improvements, the new technology fails in one essential way; it has no soul.

Then, a simple “Kilroy was here“ written by a hand gripping a ball point pen, pressing deeply onto a pad of lined notebook paper can be positively transporting… placing us securely in the heart of our shared human DNA.

 

[Aromeo4]

So if I had submitted a photo to the AI algorithm, had it manipulate it and then claimed it as my own creation it would then meet the publishing standard? How would I prove that occurred? Since a moderator has removed my example from my previous comment, it seems that I would need a testimonial and barrage of legal documents to support it's authenticity. If I could use the removed image as an example, doing a simple Google image search produces no known copywrited exact match and should suffice as my assertion that it is mine. Fairly simple. Google image search my example and see if it occurs elsewhere. I consider this my art created with a highly sophisticated human invention provided to me as a tool.

[picture removed ... again]

 

[Llehlla]

So if I had submitted a photo to the AI algorithm, had it manipulate it and then claimed it as my own creation it would then meet the publishing standard? How would I prove that occurred? Since a moderator has removed my example from my previous comment, it seems that I would need a testimonial and barrage of legal documents to support it's authenticity. If I could use the removed image as an example, doing a simple Google image search produces no known copywrited exact match and should suffice as my assertion that it is mine. Fairly simple.

I have no idea how this works! Someone else, like a moderator would have to attempt an answer.

 

[jaF0]

You're not understanding the basic purpose of Lit as a whole.

ALL content submitted for publication must be wholly your own original content. If you write a story, it must be in your own words, not the altered or manipulated words of others. The Author's Hangout is full of threads where writers ran their drafts through various programs that altered their original words enough to be detected by programs that detect 'AI', causing rejections.

When those authors went back to their original drafts and edited on their own based on the provided suggestions, the stories were accepted.

Running a picture you took though a machine that makes significant changes would likely result in rejection.

Using an original photograph as a base in an editing program where you make manual changes to adjust colors or smooth lines or textures would not result in rejection.

 

[Aromeo4]

Using your logic, if I photographed my "artwork" it would be my own photograph, unedited or changed by any machine, original with no changes made, just a photograph and would meet the standard you propose. If you just look at a Facebook feed, it is packed with original digital art. All of the individuals who have created these unbelievably mesmerizing creations are the artist. the machine only produces a product of the imagination used to guide it. No photograph is taken without a machine. The only guiding principle when it comes to these art works should be copyright infringement. And once determining the artist did indeed provide original work, you as a publisher would ensure the artist retains those right as you provide the copyright by publishing it, providing a guarantee others could not claim it as their own. As an example, the removed image is currently not copyrighted and you could submit it to Getty images, copyrighting it as your own. We are not talking about dialogue. We are addressing imagery. Help us as creators ensure what is ours, remains ours weather it be dialogue or imagery. And BTW if you have seen the images removed from my original submission, you would know it made the story so much more enjoyable and libidinous.

 

[Aromeo4]

I have no idea how this works! Someone else, like a moderator would have to attempt an answer.

On the Google home page next to the dialogue query box there is an image of a microphone and next to it an icon that looks like a camera. Click on it and it will open an interface where you can upload images for search. You can whittle it down to "exact match." If none is returned, then no copywrited duplicate exists within the Google database (which is virtually infinite.)

 

[jaF0]

If you just look at a Facebook feed,

This is Literotica. What you see on sites with questionable ethics does not apply here.

We are not talking about dialogue.

Literotica is a story based site and the sitewide rules regarding content creation apply.

This conversation is done.

 

[Llehlla]

On the Google home page next to the dialogue query box there is an image of a microphone and next to it an icon that looks like a camera. Click on it and it will open an interface where you can upload images for search. You can whittle it down to "exact match." If none is returned, then no copywrited duplicate exists within the Google database (which is virtually infinite.)

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. What I meant was, other than obvious infringements of the stated rules about not including minors in one’s art or writing, etc… I don’t have any idea how this website, Literotica, determines what is acceptable or not regarding AI content.

Personally, I have no interest in using AI. Thank you for showing me how but that is contrary to what I’m about as an artist and writer. I like to think of the ideas and I love bringing them to life with my own hand and drawing implements. I simply have no interest in AI.

 

[Llehlla]

This is Literotica. What you see on sites with questionable ethics does not apply here.


Literotica is a story based site and the sitewide rules regarding content creation apply.

This conversation is done.

Yes, Facebook and Literotica are completely different entities.

 

[SteelPoint]

Where is the line on original art?

Not a simple question and not one that will have a definitive answer. It will boil down to opinion.

Yes... legal opinion.

And you can consider that "definitive".