I don't really understand why we're more strict over here about it and I'd just like some feedback on why that is the case. I had my first two posts here deleted under that rule and I just didn't expect to run into it at all.

throwawayvr said:
I don't really understand why we're more strict over here about it and I'd just like some feedback on why that is the case. I had my first two posts here deleted under that rule and I just didn't expect to run into it at all.

I haven't been told the reason, but my guess is that it is to avoid legal complications that could be caused by image models that are trained on actual child pornography. Even if 100% of those posts come from models trained only on furry drawings, the risk remains.

The legal battles involving AI art are just starting. For all we know this site will have to shut down within a few years if the copyright battles play out a certain way.

lance_armstrong said:
I haven't been told the reason, but my guess is that it is to avoid legal complications that could be caused by image models that are trained on actual child pornography. Even if 100% of those posts come from models trained only on furry drawings, the risk remains.

The legal battles involving AI art are just starting. For all we know this site will have to shut down within a few years if the copyright battles play out a certain way.

I don't really understand how the risk remains if 100% came from furry drawing training? Also isn't that risk there even when generating art that *isn't* underage?

In any case, thank you for answering me even if the answer is a guess, I do appreciate it.

Here's to a long life of the site (and a hope that the rules can change someday!)

throwawayvr said:
I don't really understand how the risk remains if 100% came from furry drawing training? Also isn't that risk there even when generating art that *isn't* underage?

In any case, thank you for answering me even if the answer is a guess, I do appreciate it.

Here's to a long life of the site (and a hope that the rules can change someday!)

Public AI image models aren't trained on illegal content (or at least, if they are, they're good at hiding it), but the problem is, people can train their own incarnations of Stable Diffusion locally.

lendrimujina said:
Public AI image models aren't trained on illegal content (or at least, if they are, they're good at hiding it), but the problem is, people can train their own incarnations of Stable Diffusion locally.

Not many people are training full models privately. Even most of the "models" out there are just merges and mixtures of existing ones. The stuff that is getting done privately on a significant basis is LoRAs and other narrow, specialized fine-tunes for specific characters or concepts. It wouldn't make much sense to include actual CP in the training set for one of those unless it was intended to generate photorealistic humans, and since this site is not really intended for either photorealism or humans, it seems to be a pretty remote fear. For a cub LoRA, training on cub art would be easier and more effective. That's not to say you couldn't include real CP, but there'd be no real reason to unless including it was a goal unto itself. And at that point you could say the same about any LoRA, regardless of what age it's used to generate, as throwawayvr pointed out.
Besides, the risk is there even with human-drawn art that the artist may have referenced illegal material. Probably greater. But without a reason to believe that's the case for a given image or artist, there's no reason to believe that's the case, to put it tautologically. In rare cases you do get artists like Higashiyama Show who was caught tracing of-age photos, and does loli in separate works, where you have to wonder what else might be traced, but otherwise? Not really.

The argument of legal ambiguity doesn't really make much sense given all the other ambiguities either. The site's existence assumes laws aren't going to go full-retard over copyright the way artists are pushing for, trying to declare that letting a computer looking at art they publicly posted is infringement, since if that happened all the models would be illegal regardless of the underage question. Deleting art where there's some specific reason to suspect the model would probably cover the bases, and if didn't then wouldn't it be just as easy to declare, after a ruling, "well, we've got no choice, time to purge the cub tag"?

To be honest, my suspicion is that the legal argument is just a convenient excuse. The internet has gotten more squeamish about what should be allowed to be portrayed in fiction than it was when e621 started; the administration may have taken the chance with a new medium, new site, and new legal vagueness to implement the kind of more restrictive rules which many would like to see on e621 itself, but which would be very divisive to implement after so long with it permitted.

0mnm652 said:
Not many people are training full models privately. Even most of the "models" out there are just merges and mixtures of existing ones. The stuff that is getting done privately on a significant basis is LoRAs and other narrow, specialized fine-tunes for specific characters or concepts. It wouldn't make much sense to include actual CP in the training set for one of those unless it was intended to generate photorealistic humans, and since this site is not really intended for either photorealism or humans, it seems to be a pretty remote fear. For a cub LoRA, training on cub art would be easier and more effective. That's not to say you couldn't include real CP, but there'd be no real reason to unless including it was a goal unto itself. And at that point you could say the same about any LoRA, regardless of what age it's used to generate, as throwawayvr pointed out.
Besides, the risk is there even with human-drawn art that the artist may have referenced illegal material. Probably greater. But without a reason to believe that's the case for a given image or artist, there's no reason to believe that's the case, to put it tautologically. In rare cases you do get artists like Higashiyama Show who was caught tracing of-age photos, and does loli in separate works, where you have to wonder what else might be traced, but otherwise? Not really.

The argument of legal ambiguity doesn't really make much sense given all the other ambiguities either. The site's existence assumes laws aren't going to go full-retard over copyright the way artists are pushing for, trying to declare that letting a computer looking at art they publicly posted is infringement, since if that happened all the models would be illegal regardless of the underage question. Deleting art where there's some specific reason to suspect the model would probably cover the bases, and if didn't then wouldn't it be just as easy to declare, after a ruling, "well, we've got no choice, time to purge the cub tag"?

To be honest, my suspicion is that the legal argument is just a convenient excuse. The internet has gotten more squeamish about what should be allowed to be portrayed in fiction than it was when e621 started; the administration may have taken the chance with a new medium, new site, and new legal vagueness to implement the kind of more restrictive rules which many would like to see on e621 itself, but which would be very divisive to implement after so long with it permitted.

Saw several Telegram communities where cub/young contents are a big no-no, so sounds pretty logical.

I'm struggling to find the rules about this and the only thing I can find is this page: https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/3 which under "Posting abuse" says: "Posting submissions featuring underage appearing characters in explicit situations". That's pretty vague. Is this to be interpreted as the official rule on this subject? If not then what IS the official rule on this? Are we not allowed to post AI generated artwork of anthropomorphic cub characters (Those with fur, feathers, or scales, NOT human artwork) in explicit / sexual context on this site at all? Could we get a definitive statement from someone on the staff here to tell us exactly what is or is not allowed with this subject? Or if it is already posted then could you please link us to where the rule on this is posted? I can't find any other rule or information about this other than that I linked to above.

aquavixen said:
I'm struggling to find the rules about this and the only thing I can find is this page: https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/3 which under "Posting abuse" says: "Posting submissions featuring underage appearing characters in explicit situations". That's pretty vague. Is this to be interpreted as the official rule on this subject? If not then what IS the official rule on this? Are we not allowed to post AI generated artwork of anthropomorphic cub characters (Those with fur, feathers, or scales, NOT human artwork) in explicit / sexual context on this site at all? Could we get a definitive statement from someone on the staff here to tell us exactly what is or is not allowed with this subject? Or if it is already posted then could you please link us to where the rule on this is posted? I can't find any other rule or information about this other than that I linked to above.

I have used the policy on this page:

https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/2

Prohibited Content
In addition, you may not use e621 to upload any of the following:

Child pornography: Any photograph, drawing or movie that depicts children, real or fictional, in a sexual manner. This includes nudity, explicit sex, and implied sex

I got the page number wrong in my deletion reasons. 💀

Still no answer for this? I was expecting it to be the simple case that the servers are hosted in a restrictive country different to the E621 servers. But I've no idea if that is the case. It's so counter productive to see this rule being enforced and causing deletions all the while no-one has any idea why they are enforcing it. A terrible answer is better than no answer, like if it turned out the site owner just hates cub art. It'd be nice to be able to move past the speculation. As argued above, there is no logical reason for it, which means we just have a selection of illogical ones. It's easy to assume the worst among them, but no-one should have to assume, especially not the staff.

I... would just like to know how close I can get to the line 😅 I have been making lovely submissions of regular content but I have so much to bring. I also don't wanna cite other examples on the site because I'd rather not risk them getting taken foen. I just wanna at least walk the line until we know the future of the content on this site.

venisoncreampie said:
I... would just like to know how close I can get to the line 😅 I have been making lovely submissions of regular content but I have so much to bring. I also don't wanna cite other examples on the site because I'd rather not risk them getting taken foen. I just wanna at least walk the line until we know the future of the content on this site.

This should be fine:

post #6190

post #6191 might be where the line is.

I'm less sure about ferals.

Subject to change when an admin actually takes interest in the site.

lance_armstrong said:
This should be fine:

post #6190

post #6191 might be where the line is.

I'm less sure about ferals.

Subject to change when an admin actually takes interest in the site.

At least that is a response I can work with for the time being lol, thanks for taking the time to respond, I know it's hard since your not actually among the admins.

lance_armstrong said:
This should be fine:

post #6190

post #6191 might be where the line is.

I'm less sure about ferals.

Subject to change when an admin actually takes interest in the site.

It appears you were wrong as that was removed and apparently now it's not allowed on the site.

EDIT: It seems they finally updated their policy and stated AI-Generated cub artwork isn't allowed on the site, see here: https://e6ai.net/help/uploading_guidelines

This is pretty sad.. I guess InkBunny is the only place we can post this on the internet then. :(

aquavixen said:
It appears you were wrong as that was removed and apparently now it's not allowed on the site.

EDIT: It seems they finally updated their policy and stated AI-Generated cub artwork isn't allowed on the site, see here: https://e6ai.net/help/uploading_guidelines

This is pretty sad.. I guess InkBunny is the only place we can post this on the internet then. :(

literally made a new forum post about where to post cub AI
its topic #208

Edit: thanks Lance, it appears im dumb

mintyflur said:
literally made a new forum post about where to post cub AI
its forum #208

topic #208

lance_armstrong said:
topic #208

Woops
I may been confused by the DText stuff

This rule for ferals make no goddamn sense. For anthro I totally agree, but ferals? How would they use such database for ferals? And if we assume this can happen, doesn't that mean that technically someone can use real zoophilic base for realistic ferals too yet it's all fine? It really hurts seeing so many good pictures go to waste just because the animal in question looked "too young" meanwhile the director's intention was probably just to make it look cuter rather than cubby to begin with.

It really should've just been like in e621 with only anthro and humans being banned since with that one I can agree that there's a danger, but for ferals it seems too redundant and petty.

adusak90 said:
This rule for ferals make no goddamn sense. For anthro I totally agree, but ferals? How would they use such database for ferals? And if we assume this can happen, doesn't that mean that technically someone can use real zoophilic base for realistic ferals too yet it's all fine? It really hurts seeing so many good pictures go to waste just because the animal in question looked "too young" meanwhile the director's intention was probably just to make it look cuter rather than cubby to begin with.

It really should've just been like in e621 with only anthro and humans being banned since with that one I can agree that there's a danger, but for ferals it seems too redundant and petty.

As I stated in a previous forum and stated in the uploading guidelines:

•Any submissions containing underage characters in explicit situations
Visual appearance or canonical age both count for this.

In addition, you may not use e6AI to upload any of the following:

•Child pornography: Any photograph, drawing or movie that depicts children, real or fictional, in a sexual manner. This includes nudity, explicit sex, and implied sex.

In other words, no "fictional children" that are nude or having sex.

Fully clothed cubs should probably be okay as long as it follows the uploading guidelines or doesn't imply cubs in explicit situations.

But the primary reason is that AI would often use real images gathered in it's database (CP) to use as a reference when generating images. Either way, if the janies decide the image is not suitable for the site, then so be it. That's just how it goes!

As far as "Ferals" are concerned, A quick look at the file (Primary though the source coding) will immediately detect weather the image is of a real animal or not. In which case the upload will be removed and the user will be given a temp or perma ban.

angry_puppy said:
[...]
As far as "Ferals" are concerned, A quick look at the file (Primary though the source coding) will immediately detect weather the image is of a real animal or not. In which case the upload will be removed and the user will be given a temp or perma ban.

First, not the janitors make the rules, the admins do. And I agree with Adusak90 that the policy concerning young ferals doesn't really make sense. Especially since e621 is handling this subject in a different way. And also I hardly believe that any IRL law about "young content", is relevant for young ferals. Because all the IRL laws are about HUMANS (they might still be applicable for anthros however).

Second, don’t understand the part of your message about realistic ferals: What do you mean by “source coding”? The prompt or metadata? Many uploaded images don’t have any!
Also I don’t remember that a single user got banned for posting too realistic ferals. The post will get deleted and that’s it.

silvicultor said:
First, not the janitors make the rules, the admins do. And I agree with Adusak90 that the policy concerning young ferals doesn't really make sense. Especially since e621 is handling this subject in a different way. And also I hardly believe that any IRL law about "young content", is relevant for young ferals. Because all the IRL laws are about HUMANS (they might still be applicable for anthros however).

1. You are correct, janitor don't make the rules. They simply enforce them. If the image posted looks remotely similar to said reasons for that particular image listed, it will simply be removed. This still applies for young ferals and anthros.

Second, don’t understand the part of your message about realistic ferals: What do you mean by “source coding”? The prompt or metadata? Many uploaded images don’t have any!

2. If you are any bit familiar with scripting, coding, or using a JavaScript or similar software, I can simply do a reverse image search from within the files of the images source coding and deem if the image was based of a IRL animal or completely generated without one. It's not that hard to do.

3. I wasn't just referring to E6AI in this matter, There has been many cases over the last year since the introduction of AI of users mistakenly uploading AI generated images based on real animals and immediately receiving a ban for it on e621. Although not as frequently here, there has been a few user's banned here for the same reasons.

Also I don’t remember that a single user got banned for posting too realistic ferals. The post will get deleted and that’s it.

angry_puppy said:
[...] 2. If you are any bit familiar with scripting, coding, or using a JavaScript or similar software, I can simply do a reverse image search from within the files of the images source coding and deem if the image was based of a IRL animal or completely generated without one. It's not that hard to do. [...]

Well, this easily possible if an actual photo is uploaded that was posted somewhere else on the internet before. Sure, just calculate a hash and search for it.
But you always say “based on a real animal”. So your scripts can 100% recognize an image that was made by doing img2img at 0.5 denoising of a real photo?
If so, you could be rich if you sell the code! Big tech companies failed to create algorithms that can do this!

Also I can see that there are users who constantly upload feral stuff that is considered “too realistic”. Non of them got banned or even warned. So I don’t what you are referring to.
And on e621 all AI generated images are strictly forbidden, so there it's obvious you will get in trouble if you post AI content.

silvicultor said:
Well, this easily possible if an actual photo is uploaded that was posted somewhere else on the internet before. Sure, just calculate a hash and search for it.

sites like TinEye ( https://tineye.com/ ) don't just do a simple hash search, it's fuzzy (possibly AI-based) matching. will they recognize img2img at relatively high denoise? maybe not, definitely not 100% of the time but you do only have to catch someone once to warn/ban them.

i'd be kind of surprised if there's an automatic reverse image search on every upload though.

blp said:
sites like TinEye ( https://tineye.com/ ) don't just do a simple hash search, it's fuzzy (possibly AI-based) matching. will they recognize img2img at relatively high denoise? maybe not, definitely not 100% of the time but you do only have to catch someone once to warn/ban them.

i'd be kind of surprised if there's an automatic reverse image search on every upload though.

That’s exactly the kind of not really working algorithm that I was talking about. You can’t ban someone based on such an unreliable mechanism. Only hash is 100% reliable.
And also how do you detect img2img gens that were based on photos that were never uploaded to the internet? Impossible!

Also I don’t think there is even a rule against such img2img. The result is what counts. Is it too similar or too realistic?
I remember there was as user who did a very obvious img2img of a drawing of ecmajor. The image was deleted after flagging it, but the user received neither warning nor ban.

silvicultor said:
That’s exactly the kind of not really working algorithm that I was talking about. You can’t ban someone based on such an unreliable mechanism.

when you do a TinEye search, you get a link to the matches not a "it matched/didn't matched" binary answer. janitors can make a subjective decision after looking at the original image.

i'm pretty sure we can get banned for any reason or no reason. there's no inalienable "right to access e6ai".

Also I don’t think there is even a rule against such img2img.

that part i'm not sure about, but i'm pretty sure if it's obvious and the janitor knows what you did then it's probably not going to get approved at the least.

blp said:
[...]
i'm pretty sure we can get banned for any reason or no reason. there's no inalienable "right to access e6ai".
[...]

Sure there is no “right to access e6ai”, but if the decisions of the staff would be completely random or based on a broken algorithm than there would be no need to ban me, because I would be out of here anyway.
I don’t do such img2img, but how do I prove it, if someone feels like starting a witch hunt?
If you look at my most recent upload, it’s very realistic. But I assure you that it is made from 100% noise. But I can’t prove it because I used two different models and made countless edits and inpaints.