The substantive launch Artwork is created by a real person.
The artist remains credited, retains copyright unless a separate signed agreement says otherwise, and remains responsible for incorporated rights.
Foundation / Human creation
The artist creates. Technology supports.
Applicable zHezar artist competitions require original human-created Artwork. Manual digital tools and lawful references may support the artist, while generative systems may not create the substantive visual work.
Reference only. No artist, Artwork, entry, file, detector result, evidence request, finding, restriction, accusation, appeal, or competition decision is represented here.
Human directionIdea, judgment, hand, and authorship
Supporting technologyTools assist; they do not author the central work
Human intent / human creation / credited Artwork
Current evidence
The human-creation principle is confirmed. The final policy is not active.
The repository defines launch direction and review safeguards. It does not provide final Official Rules, an open competition, an approved evidence workflow, a trained reviewer roster, or authority to classify any artist or work.
No work is reviewed or labeled here.
No visual example, detector score, suspicious-file fixture, accusation, disqualification, restriction, or appeal outcome is invented.
Tool boundary
Software features do not decide authorship by their name alone.
Published rules evaluate what a tool did in the creation process. Ordinary software is not automatically prohibited merely because it also contains optional AI features.
Human-controlled creation and lawful reference.
- Manual digital drawing, painting, modeling, and editing tools
- Traditional painting, drawing, and mixed-media tools
- Lawfully used photography and photo references
- Ordinary corrective tools evaluated under published rules
- Production preparation that does not author substantive visual elements
Generative systems authoring the substantive work.
- Text-to-image generation
- Image-to-image generation used to create substantive Artwork
- Generative fill used as substantive Artwork
- AI-created visual elements
- Generative composition used as the central work
- Falsely representing generated work as manually created
Artist responsibility
Human-created does not remove rights obligations.
The artist remains responsible for every material incorporated into the official entry and any later production source package.
- 01Copyright
- 02Trademark
- 03Likeness rights
- 04Licenses
- 05Source references
- 06Incorporated materials
Process evidence
Request specific evidence only when a material concern needs review.
Public process content may support ordinary review. Private supplemental evidence is not a routine burden on every applicant and must use a protected, scoped process.
Time-lapse, sketches, drafts, useful metadata, public process content, live explanation, or another documented combination.
No single evidence type is guaranteed to prove or disprove authorship.
A general concern, requested category, response method, deadline, privacy treatment, nonresponse effect, support, and appeal rights.
A request cannot expose another artist’s evidence, raw risk scores, protected reporters, confidential security, or an unsupported accusation.
Complete production-quality source packages are routinely requested only from declared winners.
Production feasibility and source delivery remain separate from ordinary applicant evidence review.
Evidence minimization
Do not collect a complete private studio archive from everyone.
Only information reasonably necessary for the stated concern should be requested.
- Full-resolution Artwork from every applicant
- Layered source files from every applicant
- Complete creation-process archives
- Private process video
- Complete evidence packages
Automated detector limitations
A signal can open review. It cannot prove generation.
Automated output remains a signal or unresolved inference. One score, checkbox, file property, or public suspicion cannot independently cause a consequential decision.
Multiple bounded signals considered in context.
Tools may help identify a material question, prioritize safe review, or compare evidence without presenting output as fact.
One score, style similarity, report volume, public speculation, unusual detail, or inconsistent file property.
Missing metadata or a failed file also cannot establish prohibited generation or intentional falsification.
Reasoned human review
Consequential decisions require evidence, explanation, and independence.
An authorized first review begins the launch model. Proposed disqualification, confirmed falsification, conflicts, result-changing decisions, and other high-impact cases require designated independent review.
- 01
Material signal
Record the concern category without presenting suspicion as a confirmed fact.
- 02
Scoped triage
Pause only the affected progression and decide whether more evidence is reasonably needed.
- 03
Artist notice
Explain the general concern, requested category, time, privacy, support, and possible consequence.
- 04
Evidence and explanation
Consider supporting and conflicting facts, artist statements, technical issues, and accessibility barriers.
- 05
Reasoned first review
Record the question, evidence, uncertainty, conflict declaration, recommendation, and explanation.
- 06
Independent review
An assigned reviewer may agree, disagree, narrow action, request evidence or live review, or require procedural correction.
- 07
Decision and appeal
Provide an understandable outcome, reason category, required action, appeal availability, and audit history.
Private evidence
Review access is assigned, reasoned, time-limited, and auditable.
Evidence remains private and must not become public profile, voting, campaign, or punishment content without separate informed permission.
Scoped reviewer assignment, short-lived access, secure delivery, append-only access events, and approved retention.
Permanent public URLs, shared staff links, guessed filenames, email attachments, and public cloud folders are prohibited.
Delete private nonwinner evidence under the approved schedule unless a legal, fraud, or security hold requires preservation.
Public creation-process content and winner production sources have distinct purposes and rules.
Falsification and proportionality
Insufficient verification is not automatically intentional deception.
Nonresponse may affect eligibility only under published rules after notice, access, technical, accessibility, extension, materiality, and available-evidence factors are considered.
Intentional falsification may be confirmed only through human review.
A failed upload, missing metadata, incomplete file, or nonresponse does not by itself prove fraud or deliberate falsification.
Preserve the factual basis and apply only an approved proportionate response.
Potential action stays tied to the affected entry or feature. Permanent restriction requires separate approved authority.
Private evidence stays private and unrelated accounts are not automatically penalized.
The historical record remains intact, with required notice, audit, and appeal.
Appeal boundary
Eligible factual and technical decisions can be reviewed again.
Appeal can correct a governed decision; it does not replace the Artwork or reopen subjective artistic selection.
Factual, technical, identity, eligibility, copyright, or evidence decisions.
An artist may provide material new evidence that directly addresses the stated reason.
Replacing Artwork after a deadline or reopening subjective selection.
An appeal does not change the theme, demand different voting presentation, or challenge a result only because the artist did not win.
Public promise limits
A policy explainer is not a detector, verdict, or accusation.
- 01
This page classifies any artist, Artwork, entry, tool use, file, evidence, or creation process.
- 02
One detector, score, style comparison, report, file property, or missing metadata can prove generative creation.
- 03
Permitted software is prohibited merely because it contains optional AI features.
- 04
Process evidence guarantees eligibility, selection, production, or a particular outcome.
- 05
A supplemental-evidence request is a finding, public accusation, disqualification, or restriction.
- 06
Failure to respond automatically establishes fraud or intentional falsification.
- 07
Private evidence may expose unrelated artists, reporters, reviewers, or internal methods as punishment content.
- 08
This reference activates a competition, entry, evidence request, review, decision, restriction, appeal, license, production, or payment.
Readiness / July 2026
The policy model is reviewable. No Artwork is under review here.
These labels describe repository readiness only and do not represent an entry, evidence request, finding, restriction, or appeal.
CapabilityStateRequired before activation
Public human-creativity principlesPublic reference
Artist, content, policy, accessibility, and legal approval remain required.
Final policy and Official RulesLegal review required
Definitions, tool boundaries, evidence, decisions, appeals, versions, and acceptance are required.
Competition entry declarationFuture gate
Approved competition, entry service, identity, terms, deadline, and receipts are required.
Supplemental evidenceFuture gate
Scoped requests, secure files, privacy, access, retention, notices, support, and audit are required.
Human and independent reviewOperations required
Named trained reviewers, conflicts, assignments, standards, second review, and coverage are required.
Enforcement and falsificationPolicy required
Reason codes, authority, proportionate actions, notice, holds, audit, and reversal are required.
Artist appealFuture gate
Eligibility, deadline, submission, independent review, outcome, correction, and support are required.
Related public boundaries
Credit the person. Protect the evidence. Require fair review.
Artist Rights explains copyright and licensing, Transparency separates human and technical roles, and Legal & Trust shows which governing documents remain inactive.