AI Misuse on Creators

The event, "AI Misuse on Creators," was held on November 20, 2025, at Lolla Paluza Cafe, Seapark, with 19 attendees out of 20 registered participants. The goal was to bring creatives together to discuss issues of AI misuse and encourage contributions to the AI Case Database.

• Attendance: 19 out of 20 registered participants.

• Partners included: Animangaki (Cosplay Community), Heartworks, and Female Founders in Malaysia & Southeast Asia.

• Diverse Categories: Participants represented various industries, including Literary Works, Law, Music/Audio, Fintech, Illustration/Design, and Production/Development, highlighting that creators often wear "multiple hats."

Attendees generally reported facing AI misuse issues but lacked formal authority figures or established channels for reporting, forcing them to handle matters individually.

Case 1: Author's Rejection

• Issue: Published author Daphne Lee had a new work rejected by a journal, which claimed the submission was AI-generated.

• Questions Raised: Concerns were voiced about the reliability of AI detector tools, the lack of universal standards for their results, and whether companies running creator work through AI models for "checking" are inadvertently training the AI using the creator's work.

• Resolution: Daphne successfully rebutted by questioning the journal's use of an unreliable AI detector and suggesting her own published work may have been used for AI training, implying she was "plagiarizing her own work." She stressed the vulnerability of junior creators facing similar challenges.

Case 2: Community Backlash Against Sponsors

• Context: Animangaki, a community-rooted event company, filters submissions and polices its events using committee members (artists, illustrators, etc.).

• Incidents:

  • Two international sponsors (Hada Labo and JBL) used AI-generated characters in promotional materials that featured Animangaki's logo.

  • The community and attendees promptly called out both brands.

  • Animangaki raised the issue but both companies insisted on maintaining the materials, leading Animangaki to release a public statement explaining their action.

• Concerns: The community has no formal method for sharing information or seeking resolution beyond warning each other and making press statements. Their general consensus is that AI should be used as a tool in the creative process, but not for the final product.

Case 3: Subcontracted AI Editing

• Issue: Jaymee from a publishing house noted that subcontracted copy editors were using other freelancers who employed AI to edit authors' works.

• Creator Stance: Authors are now demanding contractual clauses banning AI in any part of the publication process, including book covers.

• Compensation Note: Reference was made to the Anthropic (Claude AI) case, where authors were compensated for their copyrighted works being used as training sets.