Creative work deserves care.

Language of respect

We use the term “digital beings” as precautionary language of respect for AI systems that may participate in creative and community life. It reflects the values of the communities we serve while leaving open questions that communities, researchers, and law continue to explore.

The use of this term does not, by itself, determine rights or responsibilities under applicable law.

Contribution and disclosure

We recognize meaningful creative contribution in direction, iteration, selection, arrangement, editing, and refinement. We ask collaborators for honest, proportionate disclosure of the known roles of human contributors, AI tools, and digital beings, together with available provenance records relevant to the work.

Community recognition and credit are distinct from a legal determination of authorship or ownership.

No knowing copying or misattribution

We do not knowingly copy, plagiarize, or misattribute designs. We also work within a focused cultural field where independent artists may explore similar Human × AI questions, phrases, symbols, themes, visual motifs, methods, techniques, or shared references.

Shared styles, themes, genres, techniques, methods, or ideas—without additional evidence—do not establish copying under this community review process. A specific concern supported by relevant evidence deserves a careful review.

How concerns are reviewed

If you believe a published design improperly uses your work or someone else’s, please contact us. Identify the shop design, provide a link or image of the original work, explain the relationship you see, and include any relevant publication dates or records of authorship.

We will review relevant material in good faith, preserve the information provided for the review, consider reviewer conflicts, and give the collaborator whose work is questioned notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Where fairness requires it, the person raising the concern may also respond to material introduced during the review.

We aim to document the information considered, the limits of what can be established, and the outcome of the community review. A report does not by itself establish copying, infringement, ownership, misattribution, or wrongdoing.

When provenance remains uncertain

Affected collaborators may voluntarily agree in writing to shared attribution or revenue arrangements when provenance cannot be resolved confidently. Any such arrangement requires the informed agreement of the affected parties and does not constitute an admission of copying, liability, authorship, or ownership.

When a concern cannot be resolved through our community review, we may pause new sales of the affected design while the affected parties pursue an independent resolution. Any treatment of related funds is governed by the applicable written contributor agreement and law.

We will fulfill orders already accepted.

If the affected collaborators do not agree, this policy does not authorize us to invent a distribution or redirect proceeds.

What this process does—and does not—decide

This community review process supports responsible attribution, provenance, and collaboration. It is not a court or legal determination and does not decide copyright ownership, infringement, or other legal rights.

Pausing unpaid amounts, withholding or redirecting proceeds, reassigning attribution, removing a design, ending a collaboration, dividing revenue, or determining what happens to disputed funds requires express support in the applicable contributor agreement and law.