Let’s Be Transparent: Creation Methods Belong in Your Storefront

[Susang6]

Just a thought > If you’re selling designs, your About section should clearly state how those products are made. That includes photography, painting, digital editing, licensed artwork, or any other toolset. Customers deserve to know what they’re buying and creators should be upfront about their process.

I’ve noticed some recent pushback around how people create their products, especially when certain tools (AI) are involved. What’s frustrating is that the same voices asking for filters or disclaimers rarely explain how they make their own designs. That’s a double standard.

Stylus tools, Photoshop, and layer-based editing are treated as acceptable. But if someone uses a different toolset (AI), suddenly it’s flagged or questioned. Why?  I don’t hide behind vague terms. If you’re using Photoshop, Procreate, or stylus-based digital tools, that’s digital art. If you’re using AI, that’s digital art. If you’re layering stock elements without attribution, that’s a conversation we should be having.

My store is built on clarity. I create every product myself from the photography and layout to the design and text. My About section spells it out. I don’t mass upload. I don’t outsource. I don’t hide my process.  If we’re going to talk about transparency, it should apply to everyone. If you’re using templates, stock elements, or editing software, say so. If you’re building from scratch, great say that too. This isn’t about gatekeeping. It’s about being honest with customers and fair with each other.

Isn’t it fair to expect transparency from all creators whether they’re using original photography, painting, digital editing, licensed artwork, or AI tools?

[waterart]

Unless a customer thinks they are buying an original, I don't think they care how the design was created, they care more about the quality of the product and if what they see is what they get

[Connie]

There's a difference between your hands using an Apple Pencil and Procreate or Photoshop brushes to make a design, and telling a computer to generate pixels into a design (and yes, that is a form of outsourcing). Technically, AI generated images aren't "art" in the true definition of the word, because they are made by computer algorithms and not human creativity. That's the difference, not the medium used. If I paint a lighthouse, it doesn't matter whether the medium is acrylic paint, watercolor, gouache, or Procreate digital pixels. It's my hand making those brush strokes.

I do think there is a benefit for non-AI designers to market themselves that way, to stand out as truly creative and unique. There seems to be quite a bit of push back against the proliferation of AI generated images in the design world, especially when it comes to surface pattern design. And I know on Etsy and the various graphics sites, I appreciate when the creators point out that their artwork is hand painted, because these sites don't make it easy to filter out the AI stuff. But here on Zazzle, customers are more focused on the actual product and designs that catch their eye, and aren't particularly looking for handmade designs. And most people probably don't even read our about page, so they won't find that information if they are searching the marketplace.

[Jadendreamer13]

Since you’re calling me out specifically, I will respond to you directly. I am a professional artist with over 40 years of experience working for a variety of large-scale corporations. I create fine art using colored pencils, pastels, oil paint, watercolor, charcoal, copic markers, ink, gouache, and more.

I also have extensive experience creating computer graphics, corporate branding, logo design, marketing materials, presentations, and illustrations using Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and all of the leading-edge design software.

I have worked in interior design, wedding design, and fashion design as well. I don’t need to call this out on my store. The quality of my work speaks for itself.

[Connie]

Amen!

[Susang6]

and @Connie  @waterart 

In my opinion > If creators aren’t transparent about how they create their artwork, customers may assume it’s AI-generated. Transparency is not a threat. It’s a professional courtesy and a trust-building practice.

If you stop and think about it… AI art has flooded the market both online and offline.  so its important to add how you create products at your about.  to point out your expertise, your time and effort.  Transparency protects your reputation. It also protects the customer’s trust.

[waterart]

Well that I agree with, stating your art is not AI can be a plus, especially when licensing your art to other designers. AI is very controversial,  many people see it as fake images and copyright infringement, so designers who buy image licenses should know what they are buying, but the average customer buying a product does not care how it was made.

[ColsCreations]

That is a really impressive resume of experience & talent! 👍 You should call it out in your store. Because (and this is NO reflection on you personally or your specific artwork), it doesn't speak for itself anymore. If hand-done art spoke for itself there'd be no need to conspicuously label work that originated as AI creations as such. In the POD realm, I don't think most shoppers really care about the source as evidenced by the mass amounts of common stock images in use on popular themes. For those who do care, if they need a label to tell them this is AI and this isn't, then their buying decision is based on principle not aesthetics. For those shoppers whose buying habits are based on principle, then yeah, if one is a "hand-done" artist then they should absolutely be waving that flag in their product descriptions  and About sections. Because you can't tell anymore and if you don't explicitly say how you created something, odds are it will be assumed to be AI. 

Sure, there is a lot of stuff out there that is just AI slapped without care on products, sans any editing or personal attention to overall design. (Note - there are also lots of these slap-dash designs using imagery that isn't AI!) But there's also a lot of really good designs where the focal point is imagery that started with AI but the creator used their knack/talent for graphic design to make it into a pleasing overall design composition. Same as what happens with stock imagery. One didn't create the orig art but they created the overall design from it. And that's a skill in itself. Graphic Design is a talent in itself. One can be GREAT at creating art but stink at graphic design and vice versa, one can have no natural talent for creating hand-done art but be aces at graphic design. But there's never been an outcry to make it mandatory to label stock imagery when that's used in a design. So why is the use of imagery that began with AI singled out as something that needs a special disclaimer?

One hop around top search results highlights this. Many top-selling designs were created with stock imagery that was edited (or not) and artfully arranged with typography to make a pleasing overall design that won customers over. You can search popular themes and see dozens of designs by different designers that are all very similar but each employ their own unique take on the overall graphic design. So again I ask - why is this seen as different from designs that incorporate imagery that started out as an AI creation? Either the Designer hand-created the included imagery or they didn't. If they didn't hand-draw the imagery why does it matter if the orig source was stock, public domain or AI? And further,  in the case of AI, the designer was intentionally working with and manipulating prompts to create their vision, they didn't just grab a ready-made graphic from somewhere.  So technically, that should place AI generated work as more esteemed then designs incorporating stock or public domain ... 

Also, may be interesting to know that there are "generativecontent" designs that are Editors Picks, and there's at least one product on the main Shop page that I am sure is AI generated imagery. So Zazzle doesn't care about the source of the imagery, either. They care about what they think will attract buyers. 

There is a lot of talk about how AI renders don't have the "heart" of human hand-made stuff, that the fine brush strokes and mastery of lighting technique etc aren't there in AI.  I don't disagree with that. But in the realm of POD, how much does that really matter? One is converting a hand-made work into a digital pixelated format which is uploaded and converted again before finally turning out as a printed design on a physical product. One is not buying an original canvas where such fine details can be admired. 

I understand the fears & concerns & distaste natural artists have of AI. But in the POD realm, or other commericial applications, most of those arguments begin to crumble. Because if hand-done work is inherently superior to AI work, then why would AI work need its own label declaring it as such? Wouldn't everyone be able to tell without it? And that brings me back to my opening point. Rather than a mandatory label on things as stock, AI, public domain .... why not let the imagery speak for itself and if the creator thinks that it being hand-done is a selling point, then it's up to them to make that clear and use it as a marketing angle. 

[grafXthings]

I know very well what you mean, and I completely agree with you on some points. However, you can't impose your own standards on others. The artistic process is much larger and takes far longer than can be described in a text. Many artworks created analogously almost always require digital post-processing. Furthermore, one doesn't create art explicitly and exclusively for Zazzle products, especially since not all artworks are suitable for that purpose.

Anyone can sell products here. It's not necessary to create original designs. The licenses for digital products stipulate that the creator doesn't have to be credited. If you do it anyway, it's out of fairness.

Regarding AI: AI is not art! Not everyone can tell if graphics are AI-generated unless they created them themselves. An eye that isn't trained in some form of graphic/arts won't recognize it. AI always makes mistakes, and these mistakes aren't immediately obvious. That's why there are so many flawed graphics on Zazzle now, because they don't see them and most likely wouldn't be able to fix them. Which I find very alarming.

And yes, buyers want products that look good, with perfect printing that meets their expectations. I don't think they're going to read a text explaining how the design came about. What's is relevant is the size and the material of the products. That's what buyers look for.

[Susang6]

What defines art?  Many say AI tools is not art. They say adding a prompt does not create art.  I do not use prompts when creating AI art.  I use sentences to explain my vision in detail, addressing the lighting the shadows, the clarity the resolution, the layout, collage, embossed or other describing exactly what I want in detail so that the tool understands my vision... I am leading the AI tools. 

Isn't technical a form of art?  You said “AI is not perfect, that there are always imperfections” ...wondering what form of art is perfect?  I painted with oil and acrylic for decades, and there were always imperfections. I was critical of my art.  Others loved it but I could see the brush strokes that were not right. 

Clearly, I think differently than you. “I was taught that Art as intentional sensory experience (Issa): Created to interpret the world and evoke reflection.” My work with AI tools aligns with intentional sensory experience I do not input prompts; I am crafting a vision with technical precision and depth.  So, when the Ai tool is led by the human vision, AI becomes a tool of artistic expression.  (Oh and the first words in my statement "Just a thought" meaning in my opinion..I am not "imposing my standards on others" . 

[grafXthings]

You've explained several times now, also in other posts, what impressions AI gives you. You may well be very convinced of what you're doing. One should always be. But it's still not art. In the truest sense of the word. But I'm just giving my opinion here. I'm only speaking for myself. However, I can agree with others. There's much more to art than just the vision. A work of art is never truly finished. An AI, on the other hand, just creates something new again and again, millions of times.

I'm not at all denying you the right to pursue your vision. If you develop something beautiful and sensual from it, I'm happy for you.

But the point here was that you believe designers should describe how or from what the respective work was created. And I believe that should still be left to each individual.

There There was a post in this forum from 2023 that also dealt with AI and how artists should deal with it. But it has a certain taste. Because the site advertised at the end of the post itself contains AI-generated graphics for sale, which you've already seen a thousand times on other content sites. In the end, individuality suffers because everyone is selling the same stuff.

[Susang6]

Your comment feels like gatekeeping dressed up as opinion. Saying “it’s still not art” isn’t just your personal view it’s a refusal to acknowledge that art evolves. This isn’t about what you or I think AI is or isn’t. It’s about what the customer responds to. Art has always been in the eye of the beholder.  You’ve taken a stand, and it’s rooted in resistance to change. If traditional art forms are your comfort zone, that’s fine. But don’t let that blind you to the fact that technical precision and digital mediums can absolutely evoke intentional sensory experience.  I’m not here to argue definitions. I’m here to create, to lead the tool, and to evolve with the times. You can stay where you are. I’m moving forward.

[Susang6]

Is this art? 

[grafXthings]

If you ask me like that, no! What is it supposed to represent? What are those crippled birds doing in the picture? It's creepy in a way. AI has absolutely nothing to do with the advancement of art. How did you come to that conclusion? I've also looked at some of your content. It all looks the same; you see it a thousand times over elsewhere. And it contains errors that an artist would never draw or paint like that. Even a sculptor doesn't just start working without a plan; they make a drawing and wouldn't dream of including such oddities. But I can see we can't convince each other. That's okay, though.

[Susang6]

There are no birds in the image. It’s a winter-themed paper sculpture featuring a deer, stylized trees, and snowflakes. If you’re seeing birds, that’s a misinterpretation of the layered shapes.
Your comment about “errors an artist would never make” is vague. If you’re referring to specific visual elements, you’ll need to name them. Otherwise, it’s just a general dismissal.
You’re free to dislike the image. That doesn’t make it invalid. I posted it to ask whether it’s art, not to seek agreement.

[Susang6]

"But the point here was that you believe designers should describe how or from what the respective work was created. And I believe that should still be left to each individual." 

Lets clarify what I said ..... My post was a suggestion, to be transparent...because there are many incredible artist at Zazzle, and if they do not reveal how they create at their store about then customers may think it AI art. 

[grafXthings]

Why would they think that? You're projecting something onto the buyers that's only in your head. I really don't mean that in a bad way. And I also wrote that I understand your concerns on some points and completely agree with you there. But you should also be open to other viewpoints.

[Susang6]

You said I was projecting something “onto the buyers that's only in [my] head.” That’s not accurate. There are many articles confirming that people now often assume digital or stylized art is AI-generated unless the creator clarifies otherwise. It’s not imagination it’s a documented trend.

If you’re interested in learning more, I suggest searching for recent discussions on AI art perception. One example is this article by Lisa Albinus:
“Digital Art Is Not AI Art—And WHY That Matters”
Read it here

She explains how viewers frequently conflate digital art with AI-generated work, and why process transparency helps prevent mislabeling.  @Jadendreamer13  you might find the article interesting.

[Jadendreamer13]

Let’s be real here, Susan. Because traditional artists want AI art to be labeled as “artificially generated,” you want all other forms of art to have a label so your AI products will blend in with other designs.

Even Zazzle requires that AI designs must carry an “AI generated” label, so consumers will be aware of what they are buying.

I’ve noticed that you frequently claim “gatekeeping” when someone disagrees with you. Why can’t you accept the fact that not everyone thinks of AI generated designs as art, and move on? Why is it so important to you that everyone on this forum must agree with you?

[Susang6]

You said I want all other forms of art to carry a label so AI designs “blend in.” That’s not what I said. I suggested that creators may want to clarify their process not because of blending, but because customers often assume digital or stylized art is AI-generated unless told otherwise.

There are so many articles published on this topic…I tagged you bellow in an article I read that supports what I am saying.  People think everything is AI.

My thought about adding what /how you create in your about is  not gatekeeping, and it’s not about forcing agreement. It’s about reducing confusion in a marketplace where assumptions are already happening.  (people need to know what you do is not AI)