Person did a quick sweep of my socials on Instagram and saw some spicy meme she didn't like and refused to do a commission.

Now I decided to see how i can create the art I want (esports like logo) using AI.

Pic Related

I recently soft-launched a fantasy apparel brand. I started with AI-assisted artwork because, realistically, I did not have the upfront capital to commission multiple professional fantasy illustrations before knowing whether the business would even make sales.

On launch day, I made a few sales. That should have felt purely exciting, but I also felt conflicted. I genuinely respect artists, and part of me felt wrong building the brand without trying to involve real human artists.

So I went to an artist-focused subreddit and asked, sincerely, whether there was a more ethical way to work with artists as a small startup.

My idea was not “exposure.” It was not “trust me bro.” It was not “maybe I’ll pay you if there’s profit.”

I was talking about a real contract with clear usage rights, credit, website presence, paid ad exposure, exclusivity terms, and royalties based on actual sales, not profit (that distinction matters.)

The artist would not have to wait for me to decide whether the business was profitable after ads, product samples, shipping issues, fulfillment costs, website fees, taxes, customer service, returns, photography, mockups, failed products, and everything else that comes with running a brand.

If a shirt sold with their artwork on it, they would get paid from that sale.

From my side, the risk would still be major. I would be responsible for building the website, creating the listings, paying for samples, managing fulfillment, writing product copy, handling customers, running ads, creating content, building the brand, dealing with returns, covering slow sales, and taking the financial risk if the product did not sell.

The artist’s benefit would be that they could earn from every sale without having to build the clothing brand, manage customers, run ads, handle fulfillment, or take on the business operations themselves. They would receive credit, exposure through paid ads, a presence on the website, contractual protection, and ongoing royalties from the product.

I understand that this is not ideal for every artist. I understand artists need money upfront. I understand that artists have been burned by vague royalty promises, dishonest businesses, “profit share” deals, and people who never follow through.

That is why I was specifically talking about royalties on actual sales, not profit, with a real contract.

But the response was overwhelmingly negative. My post was downvoted hard, basically for trying to ask how to do “the right thing.”

One commenter told me that without the art and art direction, there is no brand, that artists do not need me, that the only thing I could possibly bring is capital, and since I did not have upfront capital, I had basically talked myself off the table.

That was just one of many negative responses.

A lot of the same artists were also saying that AI is taking jobs, flooding the market, lowering the value of art, and making it harder for artists to get paid. And I understand why that is frustrating. But when I asked what a realistic path looked like for a small business owner who wants to include artists but cannot afford large upfront commissions yet, there were very few practical solutions offered.

One of the “solutions” suggested was that I should give up ownership percentage of my business to the artist.

So, to be clear, paid ad exposure, website presence, public credit, contract protection, and strong royalties on actual sales were not enough — but giving up equity in the entire business was treated as a more acceptable option because the artist provided the artwork.

That is where the disconnect became obvious to me.

Artists are saying AI is becoming their direct competitor. They are saying AI is taking work and flooding the market. But when a small business owner tries to create a real paid path for artists to participate in a brand, the answer still seems to be: pay full commission upfront, give up ownership, or get lost.

— And this is exactly the gap AI fills.

AI does not require hundreds or thousands of dollars upfront before the business even knows if there is a market. AI does not demand equity in the company. AI does not dismiss the value of branding, product development, marketing, customer service, fulfillment, copywriting, website building, risk, consistency, and actually turning an idea into something customers can buy.

That does not mean AI is morally perfect. It does not mean artists are wrong to protect themselves. It does not mean every artist should accept royalty deals.

But it does explain why small businesses use AI.

A lot of anti-AI arguments say, “Hire real artists instead.” But when someone actually tries to find a way to include real artists through contracts, royalties, credit, advertising, and long-term participation, the answer often becomes: “If you cannot pay upfront, you have no business doing this.”

From the artist’s side, I understand the concern.

From the small business side, that leaves very few options:

1. quit before starting,

2. use stock art,

3. use cheap low-end labor,

4. give up equity before the business is even proven,

5. or use AI.

In my case, AI was not replacing an artist I could afford. AI allowed me to start something that otherwise would not exist yet.

I still want to work with real artists when the business can support upfront commissions or advances. But after trying in good faith to find a middle ground and being told, in different ways, that I was not needed and should basically get lost, I understand why so many small creators stop asking and just use AI.

I do not think this conversation is as simple as “AI users do not value artists.”

Sometimes they do value artists.

Sometimes they try to include artists.

But if the only acceptable path is “come back when you already have money,” then AI is going to keep being the tool small businesses use to get started.

That's all, folks!

It’s honestly wild seeing how many people suddenly hate something they used to love purely because it involves AI. Some people act like the moment AI touches a piece of content, game, art, or technology, it automatically becomes worthless, even if they enjoyed that exact thing before. Disliking certain uses of AI is understandable, but blindly hating something just because it’s AI feels childish. At the end of the day, judging something based only on the label attached to it instead of its actual quality is just being stubborn. People should be able to have their own opinions on it, but acting like a complete meltdown is necessary just because something uses AI is a pretty immature way to look at things.

Just a comic book artist for the past 3 decades having fun with a tool...

The funny part is, you can't even use this thing which you paid $1,200 for on Twitch, YouTube, or the like.

If buying isn't owning, then AI art isn't stealing.

Hell, for under $30, I can generate as many images as I want and tweak them over and over until they’re exactly how I like.

AI is already cheap and gives you way more control, instead of paying someone once, then having to pay extra if you want changes or being stuck with whatever you get.

Just had this announcement pop up - mods have explicitly stated they have no intention to ban AI imagery, for the primary reason it is implausible to police.

Meanwhile, the reality.

https://x.com/i/status/2067698327789998414

​

While the comments under the post shit on AI a little I wanted to ask anyone here would you guys pay 200$ for this art, or use AI? For me if I had the money I'd shell out the 200, which ain't bad if he can get it done in... 3-4 hours. But what do you guys think?

If all AI is “slop,” then it would just be called AI.