I am an artist who uses a workflow combining AI and traditional means. The uploading guidelines note an exception for "full paintovers" - I would like to ask what exactly this means. The most restrictive definition would be that the entire picture is recreated such that every line is redrawn, every color changed, and all shading redone manually. None of my pictures presently meet this definition, and it seems a bit redundant - not to mention, this is functionally indistinguishable from tracing, which is also banned. Other pictures such as this (https://files.catbox.moe/zqnsv1.png) are heavily edited, with this particular example having no pixel unchanged - would it thus be considered a full paintover? And, finally, there are pics where not every pixel has been changed, but AI-generated components are used to assemble a more complex image, as in (https://files.catbox.moe/8aynx3.png) - would this fit the bill?

Personally, I would prefer if this exception were instead amended to allow for a well-defined threshold of quality and/or human effort, such that the large majority would remain banned from e621, but a clear standard would exist for permissible content. But for now, a clarification of the current rules would be sufficient.

There shouldn't be a lot of visible artifacts from ai. Both of those examples look like they'd pass.

EDIT: Full paintovers of AI-generated content has been banned as of January 8th, 2025.

drawswhenhungry said:
...not to mention, this is functionally indistinguishable from tracing, which is also banned.

That is literally what full paintover means.

You are not allowed to trace over other artist's traditional artworks (which can be credited back to them), but you are allowed to trace over AI-generated images just like some artists would with using blank 3D models for poses.

Other pictures such as this (https://files.catbox.moe/zqnsv1.png) are heavily edited, with this particular example having no pixel unchanged - would it thus be considered a full paintover? And, finally, there are pics where not every pixel has been changed, but AI-generated components are used to assemble a more complex image, as in (https://files.catbox.moe/8aynx3.png) - would this fit the bill?

For the first one, yes. Completely painting over an AI-generated image is allowed.

For the second one, I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
Assuming the whole image is AI-generated, the character present will need to be completely painted over at the very least.
Backgrounds can be left as is, but anything short of painting over the characters (e.g., just adding the speech bubble with accurate text over an AI-generated image) is not allowed.

Personally, I would prefer if this exception were instead amended to allow for a well-defined threshold of quality and/or human effort, such that the large majority would remain banned from e621, but a clear standard would exist for permissible content. But for now, a clarification of the current rules would be sufficient.

Probably not wise. It is left intentionally vague to allow some leeway for janitors to delete potential AI-generated content.
If you draw a well-defined line of what is and isn't allowed, people will try to skirt it and then complain whenever their uploads get deleted (just like how many people already complain about our quality standards).

If you want to post purely AI-generated content, just go to https://e6ai.net.
Otherwise, you better put in good effort to add the human touch into those images.

regsmutt said:
There shouldn't be a lot of visible artifacts from ai. Both of those examples look like they'd pass.

This in and of itself isn't sufficient, in my opinion, because current models are capable of being much more error-free than most people realize. Though the Gelbooru policy might work - AI content must have zero artifacts or errors, such that it is held to a higher standard than normal art.

thegreatwolfgang said:

For the first one, yes. Completely painting over an AI-generated image is allowed.

The image is completely redone, but I did not re-draw the lines one by one. They've been edited and transformed from an original version that was AI-made. Color values (well, lack thereof, now) were changed for the entire image. Hence my question, whether this counts as a "full paintover"

For the first one, yes. Completely painting over an AI-generated image is allowed.

For the second one, I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
Assuming the whole image is AI-generated, the character present will need to be completely painted over at the very least.

The character in each panel was originally AI-generated, individually. The background was dropped, various edits were made (including much of the lighting/shading), and the backgrounds present in the finished page are handmade. But, AI is still used heavily in the process of making it - AI makes the parts, the human assembles them, and applies the finishing coat.

It is left intentionally vague to allow some leeway for janitors to delete potential AI-generated content.

I hadn't considered that. Would it be acceptable for me to upload pics I think meet the criteria, and let them be deleted if necessary?

If you want to post purely AI-generated content, just go to https://e6ai.net.
Otherwise, you better put in good effort to add the human touch into those images.

Right. Fully agreed. And thank you for taking the time to give me a thorough response.

drawswhenhungry said:
The image is completely redone, but I did not re-draw the lines one by one. They've been edited and transformed from an original version that was AI-made. Color values (well, lack thereof, now) were changed for the entire image. Hence my question, whether this counts as a "full paintover"

The character in each panel was originally AI-generated, individually. The background was dropped, various edits were made (including much of the lighting/shading), and the backgrounds present in the finished page are handmade. But, AI is still used heavily in the process of making it - AI makes the parts, the human assembles them, and applies the finishing coat.

That is not considered a paintover. It doesn't matter how many filters, cut-and-paste, or any polishing they have done, the whole character needs to be "physically" painted over with a digital brush.

I hadn't considered that. Would it be acceptable for me to upload pics I think meet the criteria, and let them be deleted if necessary?

You can try, and some may even get approved.

However, if word comes out of how the artist is generating all of these artworks, their posts may get deleted en bloc.
Once a post gets approved, it doesn't mean it is safe from getting disapproved in the future.

If you absolutely have to post AI-assisted artwork and are unsure if it would get approved, then you can approach the e621 helpdesk on the Discord server to ask for some clarification.

regsmutt said:
There shouldn't be a lot of visible artifacts from ai. Both of those examples look like they'd pass.

I think AI should not be allowed at all because you have separate site for it anyway https://e6ai.net
But really AI improves further, so it will be more harder to guess that it was AI generated.
For example I was surprised recently how I can imitate Taran Fiddler like style today and made it NSFW https://files.catbox.moe/rvw7up.png

thegreatwolfgang said:
Once a post gets approved, it doesn't mean it is safe from getting disapproved in the future.

They aren't kidding about this. Back in 2017 or so, some artwork of mine was allowed to stay up for nearly a full year before the approval got the yoink without warning.

yetanotheraiuser said:
I think AI should not be allowed at all because you have separate site for it anyway https://e6ai.net
But really AI improves further, so it will be more harder to guess that it was AI generated.
For example I was surprised recently how I can imitate Taran Fiddler like style today and made it NSFW https://files.catbox.moe/rvw7up.png

Thing is, if I'm sinking hours into a pic after any AI role is finished, it's not quite accurate to call it AI generated any more. It's a bit unreasonable to broadly label anything that uses AI at any stage as the same thing.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That is not considered a paintover. It doesn't matter how many filters, cut-and-paste, or any polishing they have done, the whole character needs to be "physically" painted over with a digital brush.

But that's still not exactly the same as me redrawing all the lines from the ground up. For instance, I have several pics where highlight and shading layers, drawn by brush, cover the entire image - but the lineart is mostly unchanged.

The other factor here is that I'm willing to change my workflow to accommodate the uploading guidelines, to get the big viewership boost of e621. But if I change that up, spend a lot of time making pics to meet what I think the criteria are, and then they all get deleted anyway... yeah.

Perhaps the helpdesk is where I should go, yeah. Thanks

drawswhenhungry said:
Thing is, if I'm sinking hours into a pic after any AI role is finished, it's not quite accurate to call it AI generated any more. It's a bit unreasonable to broadly label anything that uses AI at any stage as the same thing.

I mean peoples goes here to see pure manual works without any AI help

But I found an example where real work was traced from AI generated image
https://e621.net/posts/4597141
https://e6ai.net/posts/19814

drawswhenhungry said:
Thing is, if I'm sinking hours into a pic after any AI role is finished, it's not quite accurate to call it AI generated any more. It's a bit unreasonable to broadly label anything that uses AI at any stage as the same thing.

Currently we tag images as AI Assisted, not AI Generated, for this exact reason: fully AI-generated images are not suitable for distribution on this site.

drawswhenhungry said:
But that's still not exactly the same as me redrawing all the lines from the ground up. For instance, I have several pics where highlight and shading layers, drawn by brush, cover the entire image - but the lineart is mostly unchanged.

The other factor here is that I'm willing to change my workflow to accommodate the uploading guidelines, to get the big viewership boost of e621. But if I change that up, spend a lot of time making pics to meet what I think the criteria are, and then they all get deleted anyway... yeah.

Perhaps the helpdesk is where I should go, yeah. Thanks

Without having the actual images, none of us can give you any definitive statements on what's suitable for approval and what isn't. An AI-assisted image can still be rejected for quality even if every pixel is different from the source image.

• Some uploaders use programs like Adobe Flash to trace a limited-palette vector from an AI-generated raster image, but these get deleted.
• Some uploaders make "pixel art" images that are just smaller/worse versions of Stable Diffusion outputs, so these get deleted.

Even if I saw a manual paintover that preserved AI inaccuracies like poorly-formed hands and eyes, or details blending together when they shouldn't, then I would think very poorly of it. Poor enough to delete it on the spot? That depends.
I think your best bet is to browse the ai_assisted tag (and read its associated wiki) to see the sort of things we tend to approve. I would note two very important things, however:

• since tags are supplied by the community, and approvers such as myself can't lock tags, somebody might add ai_assisted on a post that doesn't deserve it, or remove it from a post that does.
• There are many reasons we delete posts, and many different staff members handling the approval queue, so don't assume that one post will justify another, but try to use prior examples to understand our decision-making process.

yetanotheraiuser said:
I mean peoples goes here to see pure manual works without any AI help

But I found an example where real work was traced from AI generated image
https://e621.net/posts/4597141
https://e6ai.net/posts/19814

The allusion to the AI image is pretty self-evident but I wouldn't call this a "trace".

lafcadio said:
Currently we tag images as AI Assisted, not AI Generated, for this exact reason: fully AI-generated images are not suitable for distribution on this site.

I think your best bet is to browse the ai_assisted tag (and read its associated wiki) to see the sort of things we tend to approve.

Thank you, this tag and wiki page give me a much better idea of what is acceptable.

Well, after 1000 favorites and 500+ net score, looks like it was removed by the lead admin (stated reason - https://files.catbox.moe/euh6bv.png). The picture in question was one which I deliberately selected because it had a larger amount of human input, significantly more than other posts allowed to remain up (https://files.catbox.moe/o69iwd.png).

I will contact through other channels, as there seems to be a lack of concordance among staff, and I would like to get clear direction on this matter. If I find out more, I will post it in this thread.

drawswhenhungry said:
Well, after 1000 favorites and 500+ net score, looks like it was removed by the lead admin (stated reason - https://files.catbox.moe/euh6bv.png). The picture in question was one which I deliberately selected because it had a larger amount of human input, significantly more than other posts allowed to remain up (https://files.catbox.moe/o69iwd.png).

I will contact through other channels, as there seems to be a lack of concordance among staff, and I would like to get clear direction on this matter. If I find out more, I will post it in this thread.

Normally, if a janitor takes it down, you'd approach the janitor in question first to appeal it. Then, escalate to the lead admin if necessary.
If the lead admin is the one who took it down themselves, I think there is hardly anything you can do to appeal it.

Don't feel defeated though, you can always post on e6ai.net since they have more leeway on AI-assisted artwork.

I received a response. This particular post was removed because of inconsistent details, such as spot pattern, between the two panels. I was told that the level of human input was insufficient, implying that quality supersedes creativity in this matter - human effort in composition being moot. If that is the case, so be it - this is entirely acceptable to me, and encourages a higher standard both for me and for others.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Don't feel defeated though, you can always post on e6ai.net since they have more leeway on AI-assisted artwork.

I could ramble about my view on this for ages, but that's another conversation entirely. I want to meet the e621 standard, whatever it may be.

Really I don't know why you working hard at disguising that picture like it was made initially by the real people. Just fix AI errors that you noticed and upload it on separate e6ai site. You will spend much less time.

Hi, i still have some questions regarding this topic where i'm still unsure about.

- So as long as i draw over it manually with a digital brush it's fine? Even if the result resembles the original ai generated image 1:1?
- Do i still have to tag it as ai assited, although i draw over it completely myself?
- What if the model i use to generate the image takes influence of another artist's way of drawing a character (not his style), would that still be permissible? Example:

https://files.catbox.moe/7zbtcw.png

(Left image is ai generated, right one is a hand drawn image by the artist emererre).

Instead of trying to figure out what threshold of slop is too sloppy for a website that explicitly does not want ai, find a place, e6ai.net for example, where it IS welcomed. If you want to post here practice until your work meets quality standards.

regsmutt said:
Instead of trying to figure out what threshold of slop is too sloppy for a website that explicitly does not want ai, find a place, e6ai.net for example, where it IS welcomed. If you want to post here practice until your work meets quality standards.

What i should have mentioned is that i actually want to do paint overs voluntarily, because i think it's fun. I would be violating the upload guidelines over at e6ai.net if i were to upload my drawings there.
The guidelines are very vague on this subject, thats why im trying to inquire more information, as to not break any rules. You make it sound like im trying to find any loopholes, that's not really the case though.

But after reading other entries on this topic here, i realized there seems to be a rather unfavourable notion against ai generated images in general. So even if my drawings were to comply with said guidelines, i probably wouldn't want to upload anything anymore, if it were to upset 50% of all users, there would be no point in sharing my images in e621.net in that case.

xtrashie2 said:
Hi, i still have some questions regarding this topic where i'm still unsure about.

- So as long as i draw over it manually with a digital brush it's fine? Even if the result resembles the original ai generated image 1:1?
- Do i still have to tag it as ai assited, although i draw over it completely myself?
- What if the model i use to generate the image takes influence of another artist's way of drawing a character (not his style), would that still be permissible? Example:

https://files.catbox.moe/7zbtcw.png

(Left image is ai generated, right one is a hand drawn image by the artist emererre).

- Yes, it would have to be a complete paintover of the entire character. Leaving the background untouched is fine, but be sure to tag it as ai_generated_background.
- Yes, you should acknowledge that it is ai_assisted if you have used AI at any point in the artwork creation process.
- Unsure, there isn't a specific rule yet of artist-influenced AI-assisted artwork. I would personally lean towards no, since the problems associated with plagiarism would still arise.

xtrashie2 said:
I would be violating the upload guidelines over at e6ai.net if i were to upload my drawings there.
The guidelines are very vague on this subject, thats why im trying to inquire more information, as to not break any rules. You make it sound like im trying to find any loopholes, that's not really the case though.

You are absolutely allowed and encouraged to post AI-assisted artwork onto e6ai since it is a written exception to the Traditional Artworks rule.

• "Mixed creations where a human has edited the AI art is allowed."

As a rule of thumb as well, AI-assisted artwork is generally disliked here even though you have edited it.
That is why I would not recommend using e621 to post AI-assisted artwork as it is already very hard for it to be approved by janitors if they cannot see your work process and they could easily assume that you did not make any changes if you had copied it 1:1.
Uploading policies could also change in the future to be against AI-assisted artwork if there is enough public outcry of it.

i see, thanks for the clarification.

Looks like AI paintovers are no longer allowed :(

thegreatwolfgang said:
Uploading policies could also change in the future to be against AI-assisted artwork if there is enough public outcry of it.

🤷

nero1024 said:
Looks like AI paintovers are no longer allowed :(

Yeah, it's just a loophole looking to be closed. The issue I can see is that it is extremely hard to tell what has been painted over and what has not, leading to very sketchy uploads being approved.

nero1024 said:
Looks like AI paintovers are no longer allowed :(

On the plus side, you can tag that on E6AI, right?

So, how do we get incorrectly removed pics reinstated? I've already found one picture in my favourites that was removed under this rule despite there being no proof of AI usage in the picture or at the source.

thatfennec said:
So, how do we get incorrectly removed pics reinstated? I've already found one picture in my favourites that was removed under this rule despite there being no proof of AI usage in the picture or at the source.

Ask the person who deleted it.

I'm glad we're doing important stuff like this, while shit like thumbnail hover alt-text is still broken after two months.

cumwizard said:
I'm glad we're doing important stuff like this, while shit like thumbnail hover alt-text is still broken after two months.

Put

/*fix hover tags*/
article img {
  pointer-events: unset;
}

in your custom css (advanced settings)

ETA of fix?

dakka said:
ETA of fix?

Fix for what? This was a thread for rules about ai paintovers, which are no longer needed as ai paintovers are no longer allowed.

Identifying whether a piece is a paintover of AI-generated content can be inherently challenging. Artists often integrate various tools and techniques into their creative processes, making it difficult to distinguish between traditional methods and AI-assisted ones. This ambiguity could lead to inconsistent enforcement of the policy and potential misunderstandings within the community.

AI tools have become integral in modern artistic workflows, serving as aids that enhance creativity rather than replace it. By banning paintovers of AI-generated content, the policy may inadvertently stifle innovation and discourage artists from exploring new mediums and techniques that incorporate AI, thereby limiting the diversity of art on the platform.

Instead of an outright ban, I think implement a system where artists can voluntarily disclose the use of AI in their work through specific tags. This transparency allows users to make informed choices about the content they engage with without restricting artistic expression.

While the intention behind the policy is understandable, I urge the moderation team to reconsider the approach to AI-generated content paintovers. By adopting more inclusive and flexible measures, e621 can continue to support artistic innovation and maintain its status as a diverse and dynamic platform for the furry art community.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

kaskae said:
Instead of an outright ban, I think implement a system where artists can voluntarily disclose the use of AI in their work through specific tags. This transparency allows users to make informed choices about the content they engage with without restricting artistic expression.

there is a way for artists to disclose that they're using AI, it's called posting to e6AI instead.

Using any AI in your creative process will hamper your skill moving forward. Studying is about learning in piecemeal the greater whole. It takes quite literally years to get decent but the process is all fun and rewarding. Not only is using AI theft, its essentially boiling down artist into mathematical formulas it then goes into reference, which then if someone decides to use as a reference (or trace-over or whatever) in a sense is another form of theft. The years it took for that artist to get where they were to have their work trained on and boiled down into this "formula" only for someone to come in and scoop up their (often collective) efforts is a massive stain on creative communities.

There is also no accountability to what these, often anonymous users generate. OR What potentially is in these models. Many could contain abusive material, which then could inadvertently be used as reference. You can also add in image to image generators into the mix and its suddenly a nightmare scenario ripe for abuse.

I've also seen more than a fair share of artist abusing these tools for financial and clout gains. Sudden extreme skill spikes, anatomical understanding and whatnot within the span of days, weeks or months. It just doesn't happen that quickly without reference.

Anyways, if you are an artist stuck at the crossroads and don't know how to progress I highly suggest doing some basic figure study. This is sorta my go to here:
https://line-of-action.com/
http://www.quickposes.com/gestures/timed
https://x6ud.github.io/#/
https://www.bodiesinmotion.photo/
https://www.mixamo.com/#/?page=1&query=walking&type=Motion%2CMotionPack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNNSwITdPIM&list=PL7EWYwaF6E-FZ8JiBlz2tF1DQUCw-GCmn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHkAmSCtraA&list=PL7EWYwaF6E-HJOLcdw6bLbtsB85yIPK6a
https://www.adorkastock.com/sketch/
https://www.posemaniacs.com/

Great introduction to how to do some basic studies here:
https://youtu.be/pUsTaB8iZg8
(great animator and artist)

kaskae said:
Instead of an outright ban, I think implement a system where artists can voluntarily disclose the use of AI in their work through specific tags. This transparency allows users to make informed choices about the content they engage with without restricting artistic expression.

There was never a point where you could not do this, as tags and descriptions are free-form inputs anyway. People would still fraudulently pass their stuff off as manual because they wanted that sense of prestige that comes with being an artist.

In my experience, people would rather stop uploading entirely, rather than admitting their work is fraudulent. A change along these lines could only make the site worse.

lafcadio said:
There was never a point where you could not do this, as tags and descriptions are free-form inputs anyway. People would still fraudulently pass their stuff off as manual because they wanted that sense of prestige that comes with being an artist.

In my experience, people would rather stop uploading entirely, rather than admitting their work is fraudulent. A change along these lines could only make the site worse.

You also had stuff like this thread where it stopped being about disclosing tool use and moved to figuring out how much ai use is allowed and how much editing is needed to post ai here instead of just. Going where it's permitted.

kaskae said:
Identifying whether a piece is a paintover of AI-generated content can be inherently challenging. Artists often integrate various tools and techniques into their creative processes, making it difficult to distinguish between traditional methods and AI-assisted ones. This ambiguity could lead to inconsistent enforcement of the policy and potential misunderstandings within the community.

AI tools have become integral in modern artistic workflows, serving as aids that enhance creativity rather than replace it. By banning paintovers of AI-generated content, the policy may inadvertently stifle innovation and discourage artists from exploring new mediums and techniques that incorporate AI, thereby limiting the diversity of art on the platform.

Instead of an outright ban, I think implement a system where artists can voluntarily disclose the use of AI in their work through specific tags. This transparency allows users to make informed choices about the content they engage with without restricting artistic expression.

While the intention behind the policy is understandable, I urge the moderation team to reconsider the approach to AI-generated content paintovers. By adopting more inclusive and flexible measures, e621 can continue to support artistic innovation and maintain its status as a diverse and dynamic platform for the furry art community.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Did you use AI to write this?