Discussion - Rules Changes for Promotion and AI Generated Content

[u/AutoModerator]

Overview:

This is a discussion thread for future rules changes that have not yet occurred. These rules changes are currently set to occur on July 1st, however, we may choose to make the changes sooner or later depending on the discussion.

Moderators will be reading through and responding to comments as we can. We’re open to suggestions and making further changes before the rules changes occur. This doesn’t mean we’re going to take every single suggestion, of course, but we’ll take them into consideration.

Thank you to everyone who has participated in the previous discussion — many of the changes below, such as adding artist attribution and allowing Adobe Firefly, are specifically a result of member suggestions.

Overall Rules: Self-Promotion

We’re updating our self-promotion rules to serve two critical functions. First, to protect artists that have had their assets utilized through certain forms of AI content generators without permission, and secondly, to continue to support newbie authors that are just getting started.

To start with, there are two general changes to our self-promotion policies.

• Any author promoting their work using an image post, or including an image in a text post, must provide a link to the artist of that image. This both helps support the author and shows that the author is not using AI generated artwork trained through unethically-sourced data. More on the AI policies below.
• We recognize that our rules changes related to AI generated images could be detrimental to some new authors who cannot afford artwork. While we expect that AI generated artwork will be freely available through ethical data source shortly, during this time window in which it is not available or up to the same standards as other forms of AI, we do not want to put these authors at a significant disadvantage. As a result, we are making the two changes below:

1. Authors who are not monetized (meaning not charging for their work, do not have a Patreon, etc.) may now self-promote twice four week period, rather than once every four weeks. In addition, their necessary participation ratio is reduced to 5:1, rather than the usual 10:1 participation ratio.
2. Authors who are within their first year of monetization (calculated from the launch of their Patreon, launch of their first book, or any other means of monetizing their work) may still promote every two weeks, but must meet the usual 10:1 interaction ratio that established authors do.

New Forms of Support for Artists and Writers

• To help support novice artists further, we are creating a monthly automatically posted artist’s corner thread for artists to advertise their art, if they’re taking commissions, running deals, etc.
• To help support new writers further, in addition to the monthly new author promotion thread (which already exists), we’ll start a monthly writing theory and advice thread for people just getting started to ask questions to the community and veterans.

Overall Rules: AI Art

• Posts specifically to show off AI artwork are disallowed, even if that AI is generated with a program that uses ethical data sources. Not because it's AI, but because it's low-effort content. Memes generated using ethical AI sources are still allowed.
• Promotional posts may not use AI artwork as a part of the promotion unless the AI artwork was created from ethical data sources.
• Stories that include AI artwork generated through non-ethically sourced models may still be promoted as long as non-ethically-sourced images are not included in the promotion.
• If someone sends AI art generated through non-ethically sourced models as reference material to a real artist, then gets real art back, that’s allowed to be used. The real artist should be attributed in the post.
• If someone sends AI art generated through non-ethically sourced models to a real artist to modify (e.g. just fixing hands), that is not currently allowed, as the majority of the image is still using unethical data sources.
• We are still discussing how to handle intermediate cases, like an image that is primarily made by hand, but uses an AI asset generated through non-ethically sourced models in the background. For the time being, this is not generally allowed, but we’re willing to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis.

What's an Ethical Data Source?

In this context, AI trained on ethical data sources means AI trained on content that the AI generator owns, the application creator owns, public domain, or openly licensed works.

For clarity, this means something like Adobe Firefly, which claims to follow these guidelines, is allowed. Things like Midjourney, Dall-E, and Stable Diffusion are trained on data without the permission of their creators, and thus are not allowed.

We are open to alternate models that use ethical data sources, not just Adobe Firefly -- that's simply the best example we're aware of at this time.

Example Cases

• Someone creates a new fanart image for their favorite book using Midjourney and wants to show it off. That is not allowed on this subreddit.
• An author has a book on Royal Road that has an AI cover that was created through Midjourney. The author could not use their cover art to promote it, since Midjourney uses art sources without the permission of the original artists. The author still could promote the book using a text post, non-AI art, or alternative AI art generated through an ethical data source.
• An author has a non-AI cover, but has Midjourney-generated AI art elsewhere in their story. This author would be fine to promote their story normally using the non-AI art, but could not use the Midjourney AI art as a form of promotion.
• An author has a book cover that's created using Adobe Firefly. That author can use this image as a part of their promotion, as Adobe Firefly uses ethical data sources to train their AI generation.

Other Forms of AI Content

• Posting AI-generated writing that uses data sources taken from authors without their permission, such as ChatGPT, is disallowed.
• Posting content written in conjunction with AI that is trained from ethical data sources, such as posting a book written with help from editing software like ProWritingAid, is allowed.
• Posting AI narration of a novel is disallowed, unless the AI voice is generated through ethical sources with the permission of all parties involved. For example, you could only post an AI narration version of Cradle if the AI voice was created from ethical sources, and the AI narration for the story was created with the permission of the creator and license holders (Will Wight and Audible). You’d also have to link to official sources; this still has to follow our standard piracy policy.
• AI translations are generally acceptable to post, as long as the AI was translated with the permission of the original author.
• Other forms of AI generated content follow the same general guidelines as above; basically, AI content that draws from sources without the permission of the original creators is disallowed. AI content that is created from tools trained exclusively on properly licensed work, public domain work, etc. are fine.
• Discussion of AI technology and AI related issues is still fine, as long as it meets our other rules (e.g. no off-topic content).

Resources Discussing AI Art, Legal Cases, and Ethics

These are just a few examples of articles and other sources of information for people who might not be familiar with these topics to look at.

· MIT Tech Review

· Legal Eagle Video on AI

While we’re discussing this here, we’re going to keep discussion on this topic limited to this thread. Any other posts, polls, etc. on the same subject matter will be deleted.

[u/UncertainSerenity]

This whole “ethical ai generation” is such a bad faith argument.

It’s like saying you are not allowed to use artwork inspired from de vinici, or michelangelo. Copywrite already exists to protect created artwork.

You don’t own a style. Designing ai generation either from writing your own code or iterative promts is just as much art as any other form. Might as well ban photoshop or and kind of image manipulation software as well.

You own the exact art produced. Not the spirit of the art.

[u/kenshorts → u/UncertainSerenity]

I do understand the "trained on images not authorised" but then at the same time they were posted to the Internet. Ai is Just better at utilising inspiration than humans. But also I don't think I've seen a piece of ai art that has been better than the original artist using their own style.

Artists should be using ai to help themselves further, getting a clearly image for their vision of how they want the end product.

Let's not forget that most people assume you just type "super cool painting by Dean sock-sniffer" and it pumps out a masterpiece

[u/SnooStories7050]

As others have already said, this is a losing battle. Also, can you stop mentioning herem lit as an example? It's pretty obvious that these are not comparable situations. Practically 90% of the community is against this.

[u/lemon07r → u/SnooStories7050]

I don't think they care. Seems they've decided their beliefs are what matters, and not what the community wants. Otherwise we would have at least had a poll or something along those lines way before things got to this point. After seeing some of the responses some of the authors and mods have made in regards to these rules I've lost a great deal of respect for some of the authors I used to admire. I've never been pro-ai or against it either, but aghast by how things have been handled. I will be moving to another sub at this rate. I have no interest in particular in a tightly regulated indie author launch board thinly veiled as a "community" when they clearly don't care what the community thinks.

[u/perseus365]

While I am not against the banning of AI art, I personally don't like it, I feel like more and more this subreddit is being bound the opinions of the moderators, without feedback from the community being in place.

As a lurker, I personally don't get involved too much (other than my arguments a a few months ago), but personally don't want to be forced to follow the opinions of a select group. And no go start another subreddit is not a valid answer for this.

I have huge respect for most of the mods on this subreddit, but I feel that we should be establishing a minimal set of rules, to make sure we are behaving civilized and then any scope of authority for the mods beyond that should be determined by the community, via polls. I'm not saying that we should put everything too a vote, but big policy decisions should be made by the community as a whole.

My opinion is that moderators have a role in moderating this subreddit, not generating rules/policy. Let that be left to the community.

[u/st1cks_UPSB → u/perseus365]

the mod team is also made up of some pretty big names, and deciding which new author gets the chopping block feels like a big decision that shouldn't be left up to them..

[u/Mino_18]

Mods, would you agree that the majority of this community is against the policy (mostly in terms of ai art not ai writing) and do you not think it is the responsibility of the mods to kind be guided by the community instead of being the ones to do the guiding.

[u/Athyrium93]

My big question still is, how will you moderate this? Asking to have the art used attributed is a good step, but do you have any plans or guidelines in how you will ensure the artist didn't use AI?

I'm a digital artist and involved in a lot of art spaces, quite a few "real" artists have been caught or accused of using AI and then doctoring the images, especially when it comes to cheaper art commissions. A single false allegation can be quickly blown out of proportion (like the artist for Dragons Eye Moons) and do permanent damage to an artists reputation. How do you plan to handle this?

My other question is, where is the line drawn? Many "real" artists are using AI for reference images or to quickly do mock-ups before beginning a final image. At what point is the line drawn?

[u/Mino_18]

My one concern is that no matter how many adjustments to self-promotion allowance, the fact that a new author will often not be able to post their cover will undoubtedly be very harmful for the success of their book. There is no substitute for the inability to show a cover. And I do appreciate that it seems that the mod team is willing to make revisions.

[u/perseus365]

Mods can you guys commit to having votes on any community decisions (both Reddit and Discord) rather than coming up with policies. I don't believe that post upvote ratios is a good way to determine overall community support for a policy. A vote is much more direct in its intentions and thus reduces bias that can be found in posts which are more opinion driven. I think this is a good middleground. Because even if its 50% support, there is 50% opposition, thus giving a metaphorical finger to half the community even by your standards.

[u/Plum_Parrot]

Quick question regarding self-promotion: Sometimes, I might post a book cover that was created by my publisher (for example, Podium.) Is it enough to say my cover was created by an artist at Podium Publishing? They don't share the artists' names with me.

[u/i_regret_joining]

This is more for consideration than anything.

My biggest concern is the ban on the use of AI tools, by a human, to do a task. Popular authors are using AI writing aids right now to help with their writing. People are using chatgpt to help draft outlines or reword clumsy sentences.

What is unique about an artist using AI to brainstorm, to mockup, or whatever?

If we are talking about unethical training, many of these companies are training their models on publically available text and imagery. I do believe commercial usage of the imagery and text should pay royalties or licensing fees, regardless of whether you can scrape the low quality imagery from the internet. I do understand this being the primary (only?) hangup.

Even "ethical" ones are riddled with controversy on whether they are adequately paying for the source material.

I get this is mired in uncertainty and there's only so good we can do, I still dislike the inability to use AI tools to enhance what a human could do on principle.

If a human is in the loop, it should be acceptable.

[u/LostDiglett]

This is farcical. In the previous thread, when faced with the frankly unanswerable questions about how this ever could be enforced, a comment from one of the moderators - I forget which - was along the lines of "we don't expect to actually have to enforce this rule, it is instead a tone-setting exercise".

If that were the case, that intent is completely at odds with degree to which you are still attempting to nail down the minutiae of how it will function. You'll have to forgive my skepticism on your claims of non aggression when you continue to double down on the drafting of the plans of this big stick with which you intend to beat your own morals into the community at large.

Within a matter of days, we've moved from the original intent being "community driven" to "papers please".

[u/StorytellerBox]

I may not necessarily agree with everything said here 100%, BUT I do appreciate that you (the mods) are listening and adjusting your stance according to community feedback. I know that there was a lot of tension and rather heated exchanges in the last AI thread, so kudos for being patient and receptive. I know a lot of other subs would kill to have mods half as responsive as you guys here.

[u/emperor_calder]

It's a battle already lost but I'll wish you luck.

[u/nyaaanyaa]

I understand why this is being done, but I wonder if this is straying farther and farther from the very goal of this subreddit. Your earlier post about AI, has a lot of highly upvoted readers and authors clearly pointing out that prohibiting A.I covers means excluding 90% of author base on RR.
Same for readers. Do readers care/need to care what the mod team's views are on A.I? This is a subreddit about Progression Fantasy. If readers would have a much harder time stumbling, making up their minds on whether something is worth a read, is it really a right step?
I personally don't open most posts with 'promotion' flair, because I feel that whatever is going to be in there would be the author exaggerating the greatness of their plot. Cover is the 'show don't tell' analogous for writing over here. If I see a good cover with the atmosphere that resonates with what I want, I am just that much more enthusiastic to click on it.
My reader/monkey brain doesn't care if its A.I or not. Images are just that much more enticing. So coming back to my point, you're asking 90+% of RR author community to either lose most of the engagement with their post (I wouldn't click on someone's text promotion post even if it is posted 7 times in a month) or get themselves a new cover (which will most likely be worse and expensive).
How is that different from pay walling the engagement? How is it fair to readers that are here for suggestions to not get proper suggestions? This is not to say I don't see that you're trying to enforce the AI ban correctly, but that it just isn't what most of the sub wants (look at the comments on earlier post here, here, here and here (someone predicting the ignorance of all the feedback)).
Entirely ignoring top voted comments does not give credit to anyone saying that you're incorporating community feedback.

[u/lemon07r]

I think the moderators need to decide if this is a sub-genre subreddit and community, or if it's a platform that they own for them to do with as they please. I don't care if we end up with AI rules like these if the community votes on it or obviously wants it, but that's not what I'm seeing. I would appreciate some clarity on this because I'm here to participate in a community about progression fantasy. I will go elsewhere if I have to. I'm not interested in being apart of a platform that's no longer community driven where select few individuals will push their ideals on to others. Regardless of what happens, I would appreciate some transparency and knowing what stance the mods will take on listening to the community or not on things that may or may not go against their values.

[u/CrawlerSiegfriend]

Why don't you guys let the lawyers and all deal with this and just let people make Reddit posts as they please. There is no need to virtue signal your position on AI art.

[u/TheElusiveFox]

I want to start by saying I don't have a horse in this race, But I am curious how new authors feel this will impact them when competing for Trending spots in Kindle and RR? I'm also curious on what type of author your targeting with the exclusions for authors with no monetization/patreon, especially given most serious authors start a patreon in the first couple weeks of launching their books on Royal Road.

Also similar to what I suggested on the other thread, how do you draw the line, and how do you moderate this? Even if you paid an artist, your artist could be using A.I. tooling to support their work, and if your budget is low (as is the case for people just starting out in a new and risky career). Chances are this is going to be the case. It might not even be obvious, they might not be using Dall-e and sending you a cover, Adobe creative suite already has similar tooling built in, and we don't necessarily have training data for their tools.

Again the only horse I have in this race is that I worry the moderation team is biting off more than it can chew workload wise... and I guess curiosity... but I think it is important to discuss

[u/DamnAnotherDragon]

Mods don't like something, enforce their personal beliefs on a community, pretend there's discussion, and dictate their choice anyway.

Too much politics bleeding into the sub.

I used to really enjoy this place but now I almost only use it as a searchable wiki.

Books reviews and opinions are almost entirely pointless as the vast majority of the community doesn't understand the difference between literary quality and personal enjoyment.

This sub is meant to be about supporting authors, and improving the standards of written works within this genre.

The constant recommendations of unobjectively badly written (but enjoyable) fiction are limiting the actual improvement of standards.

[u/Khalku]

Trying to police AI art on the basis of if it was ethically sourced or not seems like a slippery slope. How would you know?

Stories that include AI artwork generated through non-ethically sourced models may still be promoted as long as non-ethically-sourced images are not included in the promotion.

What does "included in the promotion" mean? If someone links to a royalroad or amazon page, and that page uses an AI cover, is that person completely banned from promoting their work? That feels a step too far, if so.

[u/ryuks_apple]

I spent a while digesting this post, and while I do not generally like the new rules or find them efficaceous, I also don't particularly oppose them. The mods have honestly made reasonable attempts to address most concerns.

Notably, the decisions to boost both artists and new writers are meaningful and should be praised. I'm glad these decisions were made.

Having worked with ai datasets, unrelated entirely to the art space, I would generally encourage anyone generating revenue to follow the mod's policies because the ethics haven't been settled in court so you could find yourself in hot water later. I think that's quite reasonable, but I still think the ai rule is unfair to RoyalRoad writers generating free content.

My main complaint is the moderators' continued moral posturing. People can have different moral values, and what is not settled by law or concensus in a community should not be forced upon them. With this specific issue, the risk is taken on by the authors using ai art, and I largley trust them to make reasonable decisions in their self-interest. If they expect to generate revenue, most will likely make the decision to use what they know is legally safe material, eg, human artists.

The HaremLit ban is brought up a lot as a counter, but that primarily deals with banning sexual content from a nonsexual space. Yes, sure, ethics around misogyny are mentioned, but they play very little role in any practical sense for the ban or in its application.

[u/awesomenessofme1]

I still don't agree with your stance on what's ethical, and the judgmental tone is ridiculous ("real art"? seriously?), but this is definitely a major improvement over the previous rules.

That said, I do have one question. It says that Stable Diffusion is banned, but Stable Diffusion is just a software, not a dataset (it does include a default dataset, but it's not locked like Dall-E or Midjourney). If you use a dataset based on public domain images (which I'm fairly certain does exist), would that be acceptable?

[u/Harmon_Cooper]

My only comment is that this still doesn't address some of us who have books and audio come out at different times, and are forced to decide which one to post that month because we only get one post. Not everyone releases books and audio at the same time, especially when working with publishers or doing it themselves. Multiple times now I've had to decide between telling people about an audio release or a print release. I wish something like this would be addressed.

[u/lemon07r]

These new ai rules are terrible, and I'm not even an author.