Topic: Why are the rules for underage characters different here than on e621?

Posted under General

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.

Updated

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.

Updated

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. ๐Ÿ’€

Updated

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 ๐Ÿ˜… 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 ๐Ÿ˜… 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.

  • 1