Creator of ‘This is Fine’ Claims AI Startup Appropriated His Artwork

Controversy Erupts as “This is Fine” Meme is Used in Ad Campaign Without Permission

You’ve seen this comic before: An anthropomorphic dog sits smiling, surrounded by flames, and says, “This is fine.”

The Enduring Legacy of a Meme

The iconic meme has become a cultural touchstone over the past decade. Now, AI startup Artisan appears to have appropriated it for an advertisement—drawing ire from KC Green, the original artist, who claims his work was stolen.

The Controversial Subway Ad

A recent post on Bluesky showcased an ad displayed in a subway station that features Green’s artwork. However, instead of the original caption, the dog now says, “[M]y pipeline is on fire,” alongside a call to action urging viewers to “Hire Ava the AI BDR.”

Artists Speak Out Against Unauthorized Use

In his response, Green expressed his frustration, stating he was unaware of the ad and that it represented “theft of his art.” He encouraged followers to “vandalize it if and when you see it.”

Artisan’s Response to Allegations

When contacted for comment by TechCrunch, Artisan acknowledged their respect for KC Green and stated, “We’re reaching out to him directly.” In a follow-up, they confirmed that they planned to discuss the situation with him.

A History of Controversial Advertising

Artisan is no stranger to controversy, having previously launched billboards urging businesses to “Stop hiring humans.” Founder and CEO Jaspar Carmichael-Jack emphasized that the campaign targeted a specific category of work, not humans in general.

The Origin of the Meme

The “This is Fine” comic first appeared in Green’s webcomic “Gunshow” in 2013. While he hasn’t entirely distanced himself from the meme—having even created a game based on it—he admits that it has slipped beyond his control, like many artists who see their creations misappropriated.

A Call for Legal Action

Green informed TechCrunch that he is considering seeking legal representation, feeling compelled to protect his rights. He lamented that he should be focusing on his passion for comics rather than navigating the complexities of the legal system. “These no-thought A.I. losers aren’t untouchable,” he stated. “Memes just don’t come out of thin air.”

TechCrunch Event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Here are five FAQs regarding the situation where the creator of "This is fine" claims that an AI startup stole his art:

FAQ 1: What is the controversy involving the creator of "This is fine"?

Answer: The creator of the "This is fine" meme, KC Green, has accused an AI startup of illegally using his artwork without permission. He alleges that the startup incorporated his original designs into their AI model, effectively stealing his intellectual property.

FAQ 2: What specific artwork is being referred to in this controversy?

Answer: The artwork in question is the "This is fine" comic, which features a dog sitting in a burning room, calmly stating "This is fine." This iconic piece has been widely shared and used in various contexts online, and Green’s claims center around its unauthorized use in the AI startup’s offerings.

FAQ 3: What impact could this situation have on artists and AI development?

Answer: This situation raises important questions about intellectual property rights and how AI systems are trained. It highlights the need for clearer regulations regarding the use of artists’ work in AI, as unauthorized use could undermine creators’ rights and financial interests.

FAQ 4: Has the AI startup responded to the allegations?

Answer: As of now, the specifics of the AI startup’s response have not been made public. However, companies typically take such allegations seriously, often reviewing their practices and considering legal implications in response to claims of copyright infringement.

FAQ 5: What can artists do to protect their work from similar situations?

Answer: Artists can take several steps to protect their work, including registering their art with copyright offices, utilizing digital watermarks, and being vigilant about monitoring for unauthorized uses online. Engaging with legal professionals to understand their rights can also help artists navigate issues related to their intellectual property.

Source link

Patreon CEO Labels AI Companies’ Fair Use Claims as ‘Bogus,’ Advocates for Creator Compensation

Patreon CEO Jack Conte on the Impact of AI: Advocating for Creators’ Rights

Patreon CEO Jack Conte embraces technology while standing firm on creators’ rights.

Understanding Jack Conte’s Perspective on AI

During his address at this year’s SXSW conference in Austin, Jack Conte, the CEO of Patreon and a notable figure in the creator economy, emphasized that he is not anti-AI. “I run a frickin’ tech company,” he stated, highlighting his commitment to innovation. However, he draws a line when it comes to how AI firms utilize creators’ work, arguing that using it without compensation under the guise of “fair use” is a “bogus” rationale.

AI and the Evolution of Creative Industries

Conte framed AI within a historical context of disruption that creators have continuously navigated. Just as the shift from iTunes to streaming or the rise of vertical video for platforms like TikTok challenged traditional models, AI’s emergence poses both threats and opportunities for artists. He firmly believes that creators will adapt and continue to thrive.

The Importance of Compensation for Creators

Conte maintains that AI developers should not freely access creators’ content for training their models without offering proper compensation. “The AI companies are claiming fair use, but this argument is bogus,” he stated. He pointed out the irony that while they assert their right to use creators’ work, they engage in lucrative agreements with major rights holders like Disney and Warner Music.

A Call for Equity in the Creative Landscape

Conte questioned the inconsistency in the argument for fair use when AI firms are willing to pay large sums to established rights holders. “If it’s ‘legal’ to just use it, why pay?” he asked, emphasizing that creators—millions of illustrators, musicians, and writers—deserve their share of the value generated by their work.

Patreon’s Role in Supporting Creators

With a community of hundreds of thousands of creators, Conte is leveraging Patreon’s scale to advocate for fair compensation. He clarified that his stance is not against AI or technological advancement, but rather about ensuring that the future respects and rewards artists.

Embracing Change While Valuing Creativity

Conte acknowledged that change is inevitable, and he finds excitement in navigating the complexities it brings. “When planning for humanity’s future, we should prioritize society’s artists,” he stated, highlighting that a creative society benefits everyone.

Looking Ahead: The Enduring Value of Human Creativity

The talk concluded on an optimistic note, with Conte expressing confidence that human creativity will persist despite advancements in AI. “Great artists don’t merely replicate; they build upon existing works,” he remarked, reiterating the essential role of humans in cultivating culture.

Here are five FAQs based on the statement by the Patreon CEO regarding the fair use argument by AI companies:

FAQ 1: What did the Patreon CEO say about AI companies’ fair use arguments?

Answer: The Patreon CEO criticized AI companies’ claims of fair use, labeling them as "bogus." He argued that creators, whose work is used to train AI, should be compensated for their contributions.

FAQ 2: Why is the fair use argument concerning AI controversial?

Answer: The fair use argument is controversial because it raises questions about intellectual property rights. Creators often feel that their work is being exploited without permission or compensation, particularly when AI companies use their creations for profit.

FAQ 3: How might this stance affect creators on platforms like Patreon?

Answer: If AI companies are held accountable for compensating creators, it could lead to better protection of creators’ rights. This might result in increased revenue for those who share their work on platforms like Patreon, fostering a more sustainable environment for independent creators.

FAQ 4: What are the potential implications for AI companies if creators are paid for their work?

Answer: If creators are compensated, AI companies may face increased operational costs. They might have to negotiate licenses or fees, potentially altering their business models and how they develop AI technologies reliant on existing content.

FAQ 5: What actions can creators take to protect their rights in light of this discussion?

Answer: Creators can assert their rights by becoming informed about copyright laws, joining creator advocacy groups, and using available legal channels to seek compensation. Platforms like Patreon may provide resources or support for creators to understand their rights better.

Source link