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.

[Bepina]

I agree with everything you said and I want to add that one cannot transfer any physically created art (painted on paper etc) without some editing done via digital tool. My "about" part features the fact that I create hand drawn art but in the end I do not think that customers care about that aspect at all. They just want a nice looking product, regardless whether it was hand drawn on paper and scanned, digitally drawn or created by AI.

[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.

[tiffjamaica]

****hopefully constructive criticism, I don't mean this to come off as rude-

It's actually really interesting that you don't see the birds. There are two and they look AI errors to me as well. The customer may not see them either, who knows. They may buy this at first glance because it's wintry and pretty and fits their style with the faith that the designer has created a good product, AI generated or not. Maybe they're happy with the result, but also maybe they send out 100 of these as Christmas cards and the recipients do spot the AI birds and cringe a bit. It's ultimately up to you if you care about that or not. 

[Susang6]

I didn’t initially read those shapes as birds, but I do see how they could be interpreted that way. To me, they function as abstracted accents part of the visual , not literal wildlife. That said, I agree it’s worth considering how different eyes might receive them, especially in a product context

[Malissa]

I think the problem with those "birds" being interpreted as just abstract forms that represent motion, is that this piece is not an abstract piece.  Every other element in this work is rooted in realism even if it is not a photo realistic piece.  When you throw just one supposedly abstract element in there it is not likely to actually be read in an abstract way.  Those random bits stick out and do not play with the rest of it.  Most people will not understand what they are supposed to be and their minds will not wander to abstract thoughts in an otherwise "realistic" piece.  They not only scream ai, I feel like they ruin an otherwise nice piece.  (real paper sculpture is amazing by the way and is a labor of love)   

[Susang6]

I didn’t shape those winged forms directly they were part of what DALL·E 3 offered in response to my sentence-led composition. I didn’t initially notice them, and when I did, they blended into the overall composition.

To me, it was art. I’ve visited enough museums to know that art is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t dissect every element under a magnifying glass I evaluate the whole. If it feels right, I share it.

I hear that you feel strongly about this, but I’d like to clarify something: I’m not asking for validation. I’m sharing a piece that reflects my process,. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my choices, but I do expect a baseline of respect when discussing art especially when the critique shifts from the work to assumptions about the medium or the artist.

I’ve been transparent about my tools and process. If that’s not enough for you, that’s okay. But I stand by the integrity of the piece and the intent behind its creation.

I’m leaving this conversation because it’s no longer constructive. My time and energy are better spent creating, teaching, and writing with integrity.  @

[DancingPelican]

It's a lovely image, Susan. I do see it as art.

I also see a couple of birds in the image that appear as AI errors. One above the deer antlers and another to the right and slightly above the deer head. 

[Susang6]

I see those as abstract elements meant to accent the image and add a sense of motion. They could be interpreted as birds, but to me they’re more like stylized forms that fall under artistic abstraction. I guess that’s why they say “art is in the eye of the beholder.

[Susang6]

---

@grafXthings wrote:

 I've also looked at some of your content. It all looks the same; you see it a thousand times over elsewhere.  

Less than 10% of my 5000 products involve AI-assisted elements, and all of those are clearly labeled. The rest are built from my own photography, digital design, and original templates. I don’t use Quick Create or mass uploads. Every listing is manually created and formatted by me.

If you think my creations “all looks the same,” that’s your opinion. My customers value the consistency, and designs. Cohesion isn’t a flaw it’s a  standard

Also > 

As for your “crippled birds” comment that’s interpretation. The abstract winged forms in that design suggest motion . If they caught your attention, they served their purpose. Abstract elements are part of art, not errors.

---

[CarlaRolfe]

You said there are no birds in this image.  Can you explain what those items are at the 11 o'clock and at 3 o'clock positions? Both appear to be some type of winged thing, but not exactly like a bird.

[Susang6]

I interpret those winged forms as abstracted art stylized accents that suggest flight and motion within the scene. They’re not meant to be literal birds, but they contribute to the visual balance of the composition.

[Susang6]

delete this 

[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.

[tiffjamaica]

I'm slightly confused on your argument.  The article you linked is about digital art not being AI, which is totally true and I agree 100%.  But in your original post (and other forum posts I've seen) you compare using a stylus as the same as using AI, both being in the digital art category. 

Please at least consider the difference between people making hundreds of intentional decisions with their own hands and eyes during creation (that come from years of experience, practice, skill, emotion, unique style, etc) vs. AI using a computer model trained on already existing art of other humans. AI is statistics and calculations predicting what you want after you tell it. This is not the same as using a stylus, photoshop, illustrator, procreate, etc. I think comparing AI to actual tools artists use is going to get you nothing but pushback here bc to artists, that opinion comes off a little insulting. 

I agree it's a great idea to clarify your process and I used to include a little "meet the artist" pic in listings saying I created all my own work. This was to set me apart from clip art users (no shade intended).  Now, I struggle with this simple distinction because.... 

do I say "No AI used in my designs" - well clip art users can also claim that (and often sellers of clip art don't disclose how it was made, so designers actually don't know if AI was used or not). 
I used to say "Artist-Made" - well, AI generators also consider themselves artists apparently, so that's problematic.  
How about "hand drawn" - well what if you traced it from AI generated art... it's still technically drawn by you, yeah? 
"Traditional artist" - well I often use procreate to digitally draw bc of the ease of transferring designs to Z... so that's out as well unless it's once of my watercolors. 
I've seen people use "Human made". Aside from the dystopian ick of this phrase, there are still those that would argue the AI that they generated is also human made with words. It's maddening.

There is a real problem with the language of art now bc of the blurred lines of ethics in using AI to create and sell "art".  I wonder if you or anyone here has suggestions? Because it feels more and more like actual artists are seeing their place in the world slowly stamped out - we can't even get a proper title anymore. 

[Susang6]

The article I referenced clarifies that digital art is not the same as AI. My point is that both stylus-based tools and AI fall under digital creation, and all methods should be disclosed consistently. The distinction between manual input and algorithmic generation is valid, but the standard for transparency should apply across the board whether someone uses Procreate, Photoshop, stock elements, or AI.

There’s growing evidence that customers often assume digital art is AI-generated unless told otherwise. digital artists are frequently misidentified as using AI, even when their work is entirely hand-drawn using digital tools. This confusion makes it even more important to tag About sections and listings with clear, factual process descriptions so customers can make informed decisions and creators receive fair credit for their creative expression.

An article  from GallowayArts highlights how digital artists are frequently frustrated by customers assuming their work is AI-generated. The article explains that even when artists use tools like Procreate or Photoshop making every decision by hand many viewers still conflate that with AI output. This confusion is especially common in online marketplaces, where visual style alone can’t convey process  Read article here: Understanding the difference between digital art and ai art ... and wh – GallowayArts.

[Connie]

I agree, and I feel very sad for artists that their true proper titles are being taken by AI generators. 

When I use purchased graphics, I don't consider myself or claim to be an artist. I'm a designer, since I design wedding invitations, etc. with those graphics. I don't feel inferior, or feel a need to put myself on a par with actual artists who paint and draw their own designs. I'm also pretty conscientious about messaging the sellers to ask if the graphics are AI generated. I suspect sometimes they don't tell me the whole truth, but I try my best to do my due diligence.

I do paint some of my own designs, so I guess I'm half a designer and half an artist. 

[Connie]

People wouldn't assume that digital art is AI, if the AI users didn't pretend they were artists creating art, and if AI was always labeled correctly.

That article proves our point about the difference between AI "art" and actual art, whether digitally painted or otherwise created. "One involves craftsmanship. The other involves computation." No matter how many hours are spent refining prompts, "the creation itself comes from code, not from hands-on artistry." 

[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) 

[waterart]

What I got from your post is that you think there is a double standard in that people creating images with AI are expected to reveal how their images were made  but people creating images in different ways are not. In other words "if I have to say my art is made with AI, you need to say how your art was made too"

[Fantabuloustef]

This discussion is quite heated. I think we could talk about it for hours without reaching a consensus, since everyone has their own point of view on the matter.

It’s human and understandable that people who have honed their artistic skills for years and can spend hundreds of hours creating an illustration by hand are frustrated by AI and the fact that it relies on existing works to create new things.
On the other hand, I know from studying the subject that art and the creative process are very good for mental health, so if AI allows new people to discover the joy of creating, that's truly positive.

In any case, since Zazzle hasn't prohibited the use of AI on their products, I think we're all equally entitled here, and we have to accept it and other ways of working. Discrimination achieves nothing. ( We could also argue at that point about photos that aren't considered art because they were taken with a camera and so on ... )

Personally, since I'm very curious and enjoy trying everything, I've tried both. I've sold more non-AI than AI, and I still love drawing and painting and I probably couldn't do without it. However, I don't rule out other techniques, and AI is one of them. It allows me to create certain things that I wouldn't be able to do with drawing (or that would be far too time-consuming for me to afford) I tag my AI created designs with appropriate keyword and when I want to highlight that I drew/painted something by myself ( often if I’ve spent a long time on an illustration ) I put it in the title, description and keywords using “ hand-made” “hand-drawn” or “hand-painted” terms.

I wrote this article one or two years ago and in the beginning I tried to find a definition of what art is. It’s very complex, and has varied a lot in history. I encourage you to have a look if you’re interested: https://medium.com/@fantabuloustef/unlocking-the-healing-power-of-art-how-it-enhances-our-well-being...

[Connie]

I think the confusion and frustration comes from labeling the AI generated images as art, when by definition art is only art because of human creativity. It also comes when people who commission the computer to make images for them by using prompts, call themselves artists. I don't consider myself an artist when I purchase graphics to use in my designs, and I'm perfectly fine with being "only" a designer in those cases. (I do some of my own art as well, so in those cases I'm an artist.) Generally photographer don't call themselves artists. Art is art, and photography is photography. (Although sometimes the lines get blurred because artistic creations can be made from photographs.) But certain people who use AI get extremely defensive and want to be considered artists, even though they aren't the ones who created the images.

It has nothing to do with discrimination, but buyers have the right to be able to shop with trust that there isn't misrepresentation. Some people avoid AI for ethical or moral reasons, and they should be able to filter out those listings if they want to.

[Fantabuloustef]

From my point of view the line between what is considered art and what is not is much less clear-cut than what you just said. You speak as if there were an extremely well-defined "Art" category, which isn't true; you only need to attend a contemporary art exhibition to be convinced of that. And I also disagree with the idea that photographers don't consider themselves artists. I invite you to read the beginning of the article I suggested above or this one if you prefer: https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/is-photography-art-debate/, and I will no longer participate in this debate, which, in my opinion, is very biased, probably due to the commercial interests of both sides.

[Barbara]

A prompt, no matter how detailed, isn't art. It's rather like the person commissioning an artist, giving a description of what's to be in the painting, but in this case, it's a machine being commissioned. To my mind, only a human can create art, and surely, we can't start equating a prompt with art.

AI is an imitator, a copyist, and is yet to be a threat, but it's improving. If the day ever comes when it can't be detected, we're doomed. It will mean it has grown into a life form with its own ideas and emotions separate from ours and those of a real-life artist.

Has anyone seen this year's Coca Cola Christmas video? It's AI, and like last year when they did the same thing, people are rebelling, vowing to move to Pepsi. Humanity is still out there for the time being.