not only are post #9127859 and post #9127853 AI slop they seem to be paid rewards from itch.io
same with post #8816376 (see deviantart #1137428905)
Updated by Ylimegirl
Posted under General
not only are post #9127859 and post #9127853 AI slop they seem to be paid rewards from itch.io
same with post #8816376 (see deviantart #1137428905)
Updated by Ylimegirl
MulberryMilk said:
Apologies, if this also isn't the place, but I am unable to upload post #10202763. It appears that I have made an error by tagging it as "paid_reward", when I should have put "paid_reward_available". post #10202763 can be publicly seen on the artist's Twitter: https://x.com/kohei_nagashius/status/1981021977167974715.
This topic is also for requesting unbans for posts you accidentally tag as paid reward. It's just that it's a rather uncommon mistake so the topic's details are oriented to only banning paid rewards that weren't marked.
Ylimegirl said:
not only are post #9127859 and post #9127853 AI slop they seem to be paid rewards from itch.io
same with post #8816376 (see deviantart #1137428905)
One time payments aren't paid rewards. This would only apply if they came from a subscription platform.
WRS said:
One time payments aren't paid rewards. This would only apply if they came from a subscription platform.
That's news to me. Means that Gumroad reward would have a lot of false positives, even though it is listed as an example in the paid reward wiki ("Alternatively, sites like Gumroad offer archived or other exclusive content, where this tag will also apply."). We don't currently have any banned posts from itch on here, but I guess I don't see why this wouldn't apply? Whatever, it's AI slop anyways, don't particularly care aside from trying to resolve the bad source tag.
It probably would but it's a lot more trouble than it's worth going through that or the exclusion cases. Gumroad reward is primarily intended for resold paid rewards (e.g. creators having shops where people can purchase past term/month rewards), which is what the "archived or other exclusive content" part means. A good test of faith is figuring out if the creator has any subscription platform presence. An example of an artist that has paid content that would not be paid rewards is ANG LAZYPAINT with only a Gumroad account.
If artists are functionally using itch the same way as Gumroad, paid reward would apply there. If the item is just a direct purchase and has never appeared on any subscription platforms, it's free game and can be uploaded. It's largely reliant on good faith or others being able to notice that.
post #10237291 post #10237293 post #10237295 post #10237344 post #10237349 all have the same source: A fanbox, which has one post (locked behind 500 yen). Reviewing the pixiv profile, only one post is publicly available and it's none of these posts. So I'm inclined to believe all five of these are paid rewards.
post #10254129 Compared to the parent post, this one is incredibly high resolution. I can't locate a corresponding post on fanbox through kemono, but it appears that a full product is being sold at dlsite and dmm. In all likelihood it originates from the full product.
If that image isn't also in the Fanbox post, it's not a paid reward. If it is, then yeah it would be. Don't forget to mark it as md5 mismatch if the source was manually edited to try and bypass it through.
This is a paid reward variant post #10266341
I accidentaly added patreon reward instead of logo to post #10313801
post #10280471 seems to be a patreon high resolution version of pixiv #84725108
post #10348934
post #10348936
post #10349163
post #10349166
Fanbox rewards. Asseted the image from post #10349163 and hit a matching MD5.
post #10352895
post #10352901
post #10352910
post #10352914
Blushyspicy's nudes are paid rewards. Not sure about post #10352835, but it's also a file upload so probably.
post #10352835 is a third-party source, highly like an image sample as well. The image hash of the real paid version is c6aced8ed89aa387c323c56bfd567982, so yeah that checks out well enough. They have a "30-day anti-share policy" that I'm not fully sure how it works (share in what way?) but that's not related to us because the artist themselves isn't sharing it after that time. If it had a public first-party source, then it should be replaced.
other version (post #10364965) comes from a H-piracy site, and the linked fanbox is paywalled
post #10363164 is likely a paid_reward, I couldn't find it on twitter or fanbox. It's an alternate version of post #10133978 from Oct 17th, I suspect from this fanbox post which I don't have access to.