Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI

Comic-Con Bans AI Art After Artist Pushback (404media.co) 45

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
San Diego Comic-Con changed an AI art friendly policy following an artist-led backlash last week. From a report: It was a small victory for working artists in an industry where jobs are slipping away as movie and video game studios adopt generative AI tools to save time and money. Every year, tens of thousands of people descend on San Diego for Comic-Con, the world's premier comic book convention that over the years has also become a major pan-media event where every major media company announces new movies, TV shows, and video games. For the past few years, Comic-Con has allowed some forms of AI-generated art at this art show at the convention.

According to archived rules for the show, artists could display AI-generated material so long as it wasn't for sale, was marked as AI-produced, and credited the original artist whose style was used. "Material produced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) may be placed in the show, but only as Not-for-Sale (NFS). It must be clearly marked as AI-produced, not simply listed as a print. If one of the parameters in its creation was something similar to 'Done in the style of,' that information must be added to the description. If there are questions, the Art Show Coordinator will be the sole judge of acceptability," Comic-Con's art show rules said until recently.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comic-Con Bans AI Art After Artist Pushback More

Comic-Con Bans AI Art After Artist Pushback

Comments Filter:

  • imo AI art should never have been allowed at Comic-Con.
    aren't these venues for NOSTALGIA?

    • Or maybe the prompt and AI model should be required.

      • Or maybe not and any one who claims to be an "artist" while presenting ai should be laughed out of the room.

        • Re: Good decision (Score:2, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

          Anything created with aesthetics in mind is art, even if it's shit.

          Disallowing AI generated art is perfectly valid though, it's their show.

          • Anything created with aesthetics in mind is art, even if it's shit.

            Created? Yeah. Generated can fuck off.

            • So if a Photoshop filter is used then it's out?

              If not, where do you draw the line between human effort and tool use?

              In both cases the human must adjust parameters to get the desired effect, and the work is done by machine.

              Reducing the discussion to "a computer did it for them" isn't insightful.

              • If you did nothing more than type a prompt it's out. You can't just squiggle in ps apply a random filter and hand it in. Well you could but how do you think that would go down? You use tools to make art of all kinds but the tool is not the art and definitely is not the artist and the person who tells me to produce x doesn't get to claim credit for its production.

                • If you did nothing more than type a prompt it's out.

                  I don't care what's "in" or "out" whatever you mean by that, I don't care if you like it or not, that's not what makes it art.

                  You can't just squiggle in ps apply a random filter and hand it in. Well you could but how do you think that would go down?

                  Like a wet turd, but that wouldn't make it not art. It would just be shitty art.

                  You use tools to make art of all kinds but the tool is not the art and definitely is not the artist and the person who tells me to produce x doesn't get to claim credit for its production.

                  I didn't ask who is an artist. I made a statement about what is art. You're all over the place here. Commercial art is still art whether you like it or not, it's considered to have merit, or any other subjective measurement. Gatekeeping art is nonsense. A child's finger painting and a master's oil paintin

                  • First, you were the one who said if you use a Photoshop filter it's out like it's some kind of gotchya. I was just following your terminology so I don't know why you're claiming not to know what I mean. I feel like I'm being pretty consistent here but just to reiterate AI slop isn't art. At the very best, kindest consideration someone who "makes" slop could be considering analogous to the person that commissions an actual artist. You can make up your own mind if you consider the end product art or not I su

                    • I feel like I'm being pretty consistent here but just to reiterate AI slop isn't art. At the very best, kindest consideration someone who "makes" slop could be considering analogous to the person that commissions an actual artist.

                      That's internally inherently contradictory. If you're suggesting that someone who prompts an AI to produce a work could be considered equivalent to someone that commissions and artist, the only basis upon which that could be true is if the software's output should be considered art.

                      Bottom line, imo, AI art isn't art and ai artists aren't artists.

                      Well, it looks like we at least have some common ground here, because I would say that pure prompt jockeys aren't artists. They're also not quite patrons, they're some other thing. But I'm still going to say that LLM output is ar

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by allo ( 1728082 )

                  There are blue canvas that are art and 4'33 minutes of silence that are art. You don't even need to do anything to create art.

                  • Yeah but these are the same people who think a shit smear on a toilet bowl or banana taped to a wall are art and when everything is art then nothing is.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by allo ( 1728082 )

                      I do not have anything against the banana. It's art.

                      The point of such things is not that everyone can do it. If I draw a river and you draw a river, both of us are artists.
                      If you tape a banana to a wall, you're a copycat. Because the banana itself did not create anything notable. But the act of taping it to the wall did.
                      The fun thing is, if a hundred people tape bananas to walls now, it is art again and there are a lot of messages a viewer could see. It could says "Anyone can do art" it could says "This art

                • What if it took the guy a 1000 prompts to get exactly twist he wanted? The way Spielberg filmed that leaf in Hook a 1000 times until it fell just perfectly. Itâ(TM)s still an immense amount of work and its art. Just new. Roger Ebert said video games could never be art. I would say thatâ(TM)s proven false now. Did you know realism artists tried to sue the photo camera because it took their jobs away? Itâ(TM)s just a matter of time before people realize that art is art and ai is just another to

          • Anything created with aesthetics in mind is art, even if it's shit. ...

            Not really. Art is a form of communication and if it fails to communicate anything, then it fails as art. Even if the creator claims it is art.

            And the current chat AI is more like a copy machine, although it is not totally impossible that it might make art someday.

            By the way, the proper designation is "Artificial Stupid" (AS), sometimes written as "Artificial Stupid System" 8-)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by TWX ( 665546 )

            Anything created with aesthetics in mind is art, even if it's shit.

            Disallowing AI generated art is perfectly valid though, it's their show.

            I have to disagree with this sentiment.

            As an example, John Cage's 4'33" [wikipedia.org] is not music. Even structured under the trappings of music, it is not music. There is no musical performance. To even call it music is laughable. Likewise Cage's As Slow As Possible [wikipedia.org] is also not music. The latter is at least purposefully-made sound, but it the timescales of what a human being can directly observe to appreciate (and given that it was written by a human being for human beings) it is not music. Likewise duct-taping a

            • Well, that's certainly a fine demonstration of elitism.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by allo ( 1728082 )

              All of these are art. And all of these have a message. Art is not defined be effort or by complexity. It does not even have to have a message, but these things have one.

            • Anything created with aesthetics in mind is art, even if it's shit.

              Disallowing AI generated art is perfectly valid though, it's their show.

              I have to disagree with this sentiment.

              As an example, John Cage's 4'33" [wikipedia.org] is not music.

              Well, that is quite crazy - according to the description all the people, who actually are quiet are performers of his piece, do we own royalties as well? :-)

              [...] Of course people are free to do these things but we should also be equally free to reject their works from even the set of what constitutes art.

              Agree, being silly is OK, but if the "naked king" has group of claqueurs praising his clothes then it becomes questionable.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by allo ( 1728082 )

            Art doesn't even have to be aesthetic.
            Did you make it to make art? Then it's art. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it.

        • Or maybe not and any one who claims to be an "artist" while presenting ai should be laughed out of the room.

          You have a valid point, it is not created but generated, however - as always - it is not so easy to mark the line, as AFAIK all (most) computer graphics programs use AI for some options/features.
          We also have a precedence with introduction of photography - painters of that time for sure claimed it is not art and should be banned from the art exhibitions.

          I will sustain my suggestion of allowing as a separate category.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      aren't these venues for NOSTALGIA?

      You misspelled "MARKETING"

    • Agreed, AI should not be allowed.

  • The actual policy (Score:4, Informative)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2026 @11:47AM (#65939688) Homepage

    Would have been informative if the summary gave the ACTUAL new policy, instead of just "they changed the policy" without saying what they changed it to.

    From the article, the new policy is straightforward:

    “Material created by Artificial Intelligence (AI) either partially or wholly, is not allowed in the art show,” it now says. AI is now banned at the art show.

  • Read the article. It assumes

    * The article implies it's possible to distinguish between AI art and art made without AI. In other words, if someone at ComicCon were to present AI art as non-AI art, it would be possible to distinguish between the two. I don't know if this is true. If it isn't, then this policy of banning AI art may only result in people saying that the art isn't AI generated, when it is. Or, it could lead to an evolutionary pursuit by the creators of AI art, so that eventually one can't tell t

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      There are lots of situations where a post-event or post-display scrutiny reveals something to fail to comply or to otherwise be in-violation.

      The simple solution is to blacklist the individuals or companies that violate the rules if their violations are discovered, and to enable to event organizers a reasonably wide latitude in responding to complaints made and making their decisions based on how a given accused violator responds.

    • It is accepted practice to hire people to prepair canvas (or what is used) and paint backgrounds, and has been since the Middle Ages. So maybe having an AI do that is acceptable?

      Don't assume the AI is perfect, at least some people can tell the difference. And it seems like some "creators" are intentionally putting in mistakes.

      Just because something is on a computer does not make iot perfect, I make my living fixing such stuff...

      • Interesting! So, can you tell the difference between AI art and non-AI art? Also, when you "correct mistakes" made by AI art, do you think it's then not AI art?

      • I imagine the practice of hiring help was not accepted in contests where prizes were attributed for art mastery. OTOH hiring help would be no problem for pieces of art of functional purpose, for example Mona Lisa probably didn't care whether the portrait came out the hand of a single master or used help from disciples.

        The transposition into modern times is it's fine to use AI for art for functional pieces of art, such as illustrations for a website or print publication. However it's still unacceptable in an

    • ...* There's no definition of "AI art" in the article. For instance, what if you use AI to create the art but make changes to it, without using a computer-aided process? Is it still AI art?

      The policy seems pretty clear on that. "Material created by Artificial Intelligence (AI) either partially or wholly, is not allowed in the art show,” If it was created with AI, making changes to it changes it from wholly AI to partially AI, but it is still not allowed

      How many changes would you need to make, theoretically, in order to distinguish between art that's mostly human and art that's mostly AI?

      The policy looks pretty clear. The changes you would need to make would be to discard the AI art and make a different thing without AI.

    • Read the article. It assumes

      * The article implies it's possible to distinguish between AI art and art made without AI. In other words, if someone at ComicCon were to present AI art as non-AI art, it would be possible to distinguish between the two. I don't know if this is true. If it isn't, then this policy of banning AI art may only result in people saying that the art isn't AI generated, when it is.

      This is fine though, since if your art looks like it MIGHT POSSIBLY be "AI"-generated, it's dogshit.

  • AI art can be fun, but since it requires no effort to create, it should not be sold.
    It should clearly be identified as AI, and if the prompt that created it includes a reference to a human artist, the artist should be credited.
    Even better, the model and prompt should be displayed along with the piece.

  • People can pay for the fake art with fake money.

  • I get it, this is a private event by a private company and they have the right to set whatever rules they want
    But why stop at the arbitrary cutoff at AI which practically is 5-ish year old technology

    Why not go full luddite and require art to be created the way it was 100 years ago?

    There were special effects in movies 100 years ago. Just watch Charlie Chaplin movies or Metropolis
    Books were typed on mechanical typewriters. None of them digital or even electric typewriters or spellcheckers.
    Photographs were cre

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Because AI doesn't require anything more than a text-prompt, while other methods of producing images or videos require individuals to apply their own creative efforts to the process.

    • ...But why stop at the arbitrary cutoff at AI which practically is 5-ish year old technology

      Why not go full luddite and require art to be created the way it was 100 years ago? ...

      Because this type of action is normal when a "sudden" change occurs. There is a time delay and then a "reaction" shows up, but too much. Then a reaction to that shows up and it continues until the swings damp out. Lots of things in a civilization seem to work that way...

  • It's been this way for a couple of years now.

  • I like AI art and it can do some quite cool stuff. But I agree that for these kinds of shows they should ban it or sellers need to say it's AI art. The main problem is that there are people that work all year long making art to sell at these cons, sometimes it's their only income, and then someone else comes in at the last minute and out Art's you with all this AI generated images that don't take any time in the same style that looks hand drawn, and they also don't say it's AI art and sells to the people th

  • Ultimately, all this will do is delay things a (now pretty tiny) bit until AI is indistinguishable from human art.

    That's not far off. I agree it sucks but technological inflection points are like that. I think AI being shoehorned into every fucking thing is absurd, and am happy that businesses are maybe starting to recognize it at this stage for the snake-oil it is.

    But the reality is that art - and apparently music - are now the low hanging fruit.

    Let's be clear, I don't believe in some sort of intangible

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people only open up to tell you that they're closed.

Close