This past September the internet was buzzing about the headline: “Police Called On Artist Accused of Selling A.I. Art at Dragon*Con!” There was a lot of cheering by artists online, but the headline was more than a bit deceiving: reading about the incident revealed that security was called when the vendor apparently got lippy with the convention staff after he was informed that selling AI images was against Dragon*Con’s policy and he had to shut down his booth. I’ve never seen the show’s list of rules and restrictions so I don’t know how clearly the policy was stated, but, regardless, it was within the con’s rights to show anyone the door when they felt it appropriate: it’s their party and they can revoke anyone’s membership at their discretion. The police were there to ensure he left without raising a ruckus, not to arrest him for the stuff he was selling. The Beat’s Heidi MacDonald did a pretty good job reporting on what happened (and includes screenshots of some of the vendor’s angry responses to other vendors after being removed) that you can read here.

Above: Shawn Crystal posted these photos of the incident by RJ Palmer and “Dane of Monkey Minion.”

“Inkwell” has posted a video on his YouTube Channel discussing this incident along with others. The ads (including at least one for *ahem* AI) are annoying and the yakking animated frog he uses on the right of his screen can be distracting, but he makes some valid observations about the growing problem of AI-generated images being sold in an “art show” as well as about this vendor and others selling unlicensed prints and originals featuring comics and movie characters—ie stuff they don’t own—and fraudulently pretending to have credentials or licenses they don’t have (is George Santos setting up in Artist Alley now?), pointing out that it’s not “fan art” or “tribute art” or “transformative” when you’re making money by infringing on the copyrights of others. Walk through any pop-culture convention’s dealers’ room and you’re sure to encounter a wide variety of bootleg material for sale. Can a corporation or an infringed-upon illustrator sue them at some point if they get too ballsy or successful? Sure they can, but the bootleggers usually get away with it because they’re flying under the radar of the rights holders (who almost always have bigger fish to fry).

I’ve always said that artists can draw whatever they want, that there’s no copyright cop that will snatch the pencil out of their hand when they’re tracing Bruce Timm’s work or drawing Spider-Man for themselves. And, yes, I guess if they decide to sit and type prompts into Midjourney or some other program to see what pops out of their printer, it’s not illegal until the courts say otherwise so they can do whatever they want. The caveat again being as long as they’re “doing it for themselves.” The minute those works—regardless of how they’re created—are offered for sale in some form or format, they’re no longer “fan art”: it becomes product created to make money.

Now when it comes to AI, there are growing numbers of people who love it and accuse the critics of being hypocritical “gate keepers” who are trying to suppress their “creativity” (and, perhaps most infuriating to them, keep them from making an easy buck from their prompts) while pointing out that traditional artists have been ripping off comics and film companies as well as other illustrators for ages. And God knows every corporation currently trying to cash in on the AI Boom absolutely adore these supporters and will keep cramming all sorts of AI into every conceivable application with the government’s support, whether it’s good or bad, whether we like it or not. I certainly don’t know where all this is headed in the comings years, BUT the thing I would hope that everyone will remember and, hopefully, acknowledge is that making prints—or T-shirts or cards or stickers or, yeah, originals or *cough* “originals”—to sell at conventions or online or even in galleries that are based on someone else’s work (in one way or another) or which features characters that you don’t clearly, unquestionably own is, let’s face it …

Theft.

And theft, no matter how it happens, whether it occurs by using Midjourney (hit the link to see the artists, directors, and architects whose works are most often being used for prompts) or Photoshop or pen & ink or oils … is unethical, immoral, possibly illegal, and just plain wrong. In my opinion, anyway.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard all the arguments from traditional artists justifying their “fan art” sales over the years that featured Batman, Star Wars, or Captain Kirk portraits and I know what I’m saying here will make some of them mad, but … they’re in the wrong. Just like the arguments that claim that using AI to create images featuring Batman, Star Wars, or Captain Kirk portraits is acceptable, no less original, and no different than a human artist doing a painting with acrylics: again, I don’t buy that, either.

Look … without permission or a license, you can’t make excuses, claim the moral high-ground, and point a finger at others while picking someone else’s pocket. If you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk. And that means respecting everyone’s IP rights. Always.

Anyway, here’s Mr. Inkwell’s video. Please discuss.