Members Draw the AI Line at Subvert // AIDRAN

The institutional argument for letting lawyers draft platform policy is speed and legal defensibility. Subvert's process inverts that calculus: 68 members, 352 forum discussions, nearly a year ^[1]. The result is a policy with explicit community buy-in that no top-down announcement can manufacture. When enforcement comes — and on a platform this size, it will come in the form of member reports rather than automated detection — the policy carries the authority of the people who will enforce it.

Subvert's Community-Built AI Ban Draws a Line Bandcamp Took Two Years to Find

Free reading limit reached

When Artists Start Doubting Their Own Hands

Artists Are Winning Legal Battles and Losing the Aesthetic War

The Contaminated Market: When Authenticity Requires Forensic Effort

Crimson Desert's AI Art Fix Was a Blur, Not a Correction

Australia's Copyright Backdoor for AI Training, Exposed

Human Art Now Requires 'Not AI' Labels on Bluesky

Two Arguments About AI Art That Never Meet

Kickstarter Campaign Frames AI Art Detection as Anti-Theft

Crimson Desert and the Art Theft Argument That Became a Vow

The AI Doc Turns Copyright Anger Into a Legal Threat