News: 0180633074

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

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

(Wednesday January 21, 2026 @11:45AM (msmash) from the moving-forward dept.)


San Diego Comic-Con [1]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.



[1] https://www.404media.co/comic-con-bans-ai-art-after-artist-pushback/


Good decision (Score:2)

by haruchai ( 17472 )

imo AI art should never have been allowed at Comic-Con.

aren't these venues for NOSTALGIA?

Re: (Score:2)

by John Cavendish ( 6659408 )

Or maybe the prompt and AI model should be required.

Re: (Score:2)

by stealth_finger ( 1809752 )

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:3)

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.

Re: (Score:2)

by stealth_finger ( 1809752 )

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

Created? Yeah. Generated can fuck off.

Re: Good decision (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

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.

Re: (Score:2)

by cwsumner ( 1303261 )

> 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, [1]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 [2]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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible

Re: (Score:2)

by John Cavendish ( 6659408 )

> 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"

Re: (Score:2)

by cwsumner ( 1303261 )

Good one. 8-)

The actual policy (Score:4, Informative)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

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.

How does one distinguish AI art from non-AI art? (Score:2)

by Posthoc_Prior ( 7057067 )

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:2)

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.

This is the right approach (Score:2)

by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

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.

Feel free to start your own AI oriented trade show (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

People can pay for the fake art with fake money.

Why is the 5 year tech cutoff (Score:2)

by MrNJ ( 955045 )

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:2)

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.

Dragon Con has had this policy in place (Score:2)

by KiltedKnight ( 171132 )

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

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.
But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf
should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing
throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.
They are trying to force government leaders into following their position
100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a
particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of
money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political
preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be
a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do
they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the
right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as
a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who
thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll
call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every
step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all
Americans in the name of "conservatism."
-- Senator Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record,
September 16, 1981