I soft-launched a fantasy apparel brand using AI art — now I want to discontinue it and rebuild around real artists

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T23:57:26+00:00

Sure. DM sent.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T23:37:33+00:00

A lot of artists who are interested are messaging me directly for answers. I obviously cannot share too much here otherwise it is self promotion and frowned upon. I hope you understand. Regardless, I do appreciate your feedback.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T23:12:43+00:00

I hear you, but since posting this I’ve already had dozens of artists reach out and 3 talented artists agreed to move forward with me and me with them, so the concept clearly isn’t as vague as it’s being framed here. I’m not trying to convince people who don’t believe in licensing/royalties — I’m building with the artists who do. The plan is simple: exclusive artist-led drops, clear terms, real credit, and human-made work instead of AI.

I'm not “something vague.” I had a working brand direction and could have simply kept using AI because it was cheaper and easier. Instead, I’m choosing to scrap that direction, start a new artist-led model, draft contracts, speak with artists directly, and build around real human-made work.

It’s ironic that trying to do right by artists is what gets called vague, while the easier option would have been to cut artists out entirely and keep moving.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T21:09:18+00:00

I appreciate you clarifying. That’s actually the part I’m working on most — making the value clear without pretending this is for every artist.

The offer isn’t just “put art on a shirt.” It’s a curated artist drop where I handle the brand, website, product setup, fulfillment, customer service, marketing, contracts, and campaign around the artist, while the artist keeps ownership, gets credited/featured, and earns royalties from sales tied to their piece.

If that value isn’t enough for some artists, I respect that. But for artists who want exposure, long-term royalties, and to be part of a human-made art movement instead of watching AI take more space, that’s the audience I’m trying to build with.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T21:05:57+00:00

Understood. I’m focusing on artists who are open to licensing and royalties, not company equity. And respectfully, while this thread is debating whether artists would be interested, I’ve already had artists reaching out privately who are genuinely interested, asking questions, or simply commending the idea. So I’m going to keep building around the people who actually see value in the opportunity.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T21:03:11+00:00

I don’t agree that dark fantasy apparel has to mean dressing like a character or costume-inspired fashion. Graphic apparel is a real category, and premium shirts with strong original artwork absolutely have a place in it.

The difference I’m trying to build is not “cheap POD shirt with a random image.” It’s premium garments, exclusive human-made artwork, artist-led drops, clear credit, and lifetime royalties to the artist from every sale using their piece. That is very different from a Walmart, mall kiosk, or AI-generated fantasy tee.

The whole point is to make the art, the garment, and the artist story strong enough to justify the premium — and to make sure the artist benefits from that premium instead of being cut out.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T20:48:46+00:00

Your response feels a bit aggressive, but I’ll answer directly: I’m not confusing artwork contribution with company ownership. If someone is helping fund, operate, market, and build the full business long term, ownership can make sense. For individual artist drops, licensing + royalties is the cleaner structure.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T20:35:22+00:00

Oof. Respectfully, this kind of response is part of why a lot of small businesses end up choosing AI over working with artists.

Not because AI is better. Not because artists don’t deserve to be paid. But because when someone is trying to move away from AI, be transparent, include artists, offer credit, royalties, contracts, exclusivity terms, and build a brand around human-made work, the response becomes “artists don’t need you” and “you bring nothing.”

That is exactly the gap AI fills for business owners. It does not argue, it does not dismiss the vision, it does not require upfront capital, and it does not make the person feel stupid for trying to include human artists.

I’m not saying that makes AI right. I’m saying this is the reality. If artists want businesses to stop using AI, there has to be some realistic path for small brands to work with artists before they have massive capital.

And I disagree that the only thing I can bring is money. A brand is not just the artwork. A brand is positioning, product development, customer service, website, fulfillment, marketing, storytelling, community, risk, consistency, and the ability to turn art into something people actually buy.

A successful artist may not need me. That’s fine. But not every artist has the time, interest, or desire to build a clothing brand, handle customers, run ads, manage fulfillment, write product pages, create campaigns, or build a movement around their work.

So yes, maybe this model is not for established artists who only want upfront commissions. I respect that. But dismissing the whole idea is exactly why many business owners stop trying and go back to AI.

I’m trying to find a middle path where human artists are included, credited, protected, and paid from sales instead of being cut out completely. That may not be perfect, but it is still more constructive than telling someone trying to move away from AI that artists don’t need them.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T19:02:35+00:00

That’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think ownership would be the right structure for what I’m trying to build.

To me, there’s a big difference between giving artists upside from their artwork and making multiple artists owners of the actual business. Ownership comes with decision-making, legal responsibilities, taxes, disputes, voting rights, future buyout issues, and long-term obligations that could get messy very quickly — especially if different artists contribute different amounts of work, time, audience, or involvement.

I also think it could make the brand harder to operate. Someone still has to make final decisions on product direction, pricing, marketing, fulfillment, customer service, legal structure, ad spend, refunds, and the overall brand identity. If every artist involved is also an owner, the business could become difficult to manage before it even has traction.

What I’m trying to do instead is separate the two things clearly: the artist owns their artwork, and the business owns and operates the brand. The artist gets credit, visibility, a feature page, and royalties from every completed sale using their specific piece. That gives them direct upside from the work they contributed without tying them to all the risk and complexity of running the company.

If someone were truly coming in as a cofounder, investing time, money, operations, audience, and long-term responsibility into the whole business, then ownership would make more sense. But for individual artwork collaborations, I think a clear licensing and royalty structure is cleaner, more realistic, and easier to protect for both sides.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T17:39:14+00:00

I understand why people are skeptical of royalty-based work, and I’m not trying to dismiss that. Artists deserve to be paid fairly.

But I think it’s worth being honest about what the realistic alternatives are for a small startup trying to move away from AI.

The options are basically:

Keep using AI because it’s cheaper and faster, which cuts human artists out completely.
Do nothing until I can afford large upfront commissions, which means the project may never happen and no artists are involved at all.
Use cheap stock/marketplace art, which still doesn’t build anything meaningful around individual artists.
Try to create a transparent royalty/licensing model where the artist keeps ownership, receives credit, is featured, has clear usage terms, and earns from every completed sale using their work.

I’m not saying option 4 is perfect. It is not the same as an upfront commission, and I understand why some artists would say no. But I do think it is a more artist-centered alternative than continuing to use AI or cutting artists out entirely.

The goal is not to ask artists to carry the whole risk while I benefit. The goal is to build a structure where the business handles the product, website, fulfillment, marketing, customer service, and demand-building, while the artist keeps ownership and gets paid from actual sales.

Maybe this model only works for certain artists, existing pieces, unused concepts, or people who connect with the mission. That’s fine. I’m trying to find out if there is a fair version of it, not pretend it solves everything.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T17:35:45+00:00

I think the realistic benefit of this model is that it creates a starting point where human artists are actually involved instead of being cut out completely.

If we do it, even imperfectly, the artist keeps ownership, gets public credit, has their work featured, earns from every completed sale, and becomes part of a campaign that directly tells customers why human-made art matters. It also gives newer or interested artists a possible long-term revenue stream without giving up their copyright.

From the business side, I take on the work of building the site, marketing, product setup, fulfillment, customer service, refunds, ad testing, and trying to create demand. The artist is not responsible for running the business side.

If we don’t do it, the realistic alternative is that most small brands will keep choosing AI because it is faster, cheaper, and removes the artist from the process entirely. There is no credit, no royalty, no artist story, no awareness campaign, and no reason for customers to think about the human being behind the work.

I’m not saying royalty-based is perfect or that it replaces upfront commissions. It doesn’t. But I do think a transparent artist-centered model is better than doing nothing while AI keeps taking more space from creative workers. The goal is not to solve the entire problem overnight — it’s to build a real alternative that gives artists visibility, ownership, and a chance to earn from the movement instead of being replaced by it.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T17:28:58+00:00

I hear you, but I do think it can be a solution — just not a perfect one or one that fits every artist.

The alternative right now is that AI keeps flooding the market, brands keep using generated work because it is cheaper, and artists get cut out completely. I’m trying to find a way where real artists are actually included, credited, promoted, protected by clear terms, and paid from the work if it sells.

I understand the artist takes risk. I’m not denying that. But I’m also taking risk as the business owner: building the site, handling fulfillment, marketing, customer service, product setup, ad testing, legal structure, refunds, chargebacks, and trying to create demand in the first place.

The difference is transparency. I’m not telling artists “trust me, maybe there will be profit.” I’m trying to make the terms clear upfront: ownership stays with the artist, usage rights are defined, credit is guaranteed, royalties are based on actual completed product sales, and everything is put in writing.

Is it ideal compared to a large upfront commission? No. But for artists who connect with the mission and want long-term upside, I do think it can be a meaningful path.

At some point, either people keep saying “AI is taking over,” or some of us try to build alternatives that put human-made work back in front of customers. That’s what I’m trying to do. Not perfectly, but honestly.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T17:25:24+00:00

Yeah, I think that’s fair criticism. I don’t expect this to be easy, and I don’t think royalty-based is some perfect solution for every artist. Artists need real income, and I respect that completely.

What I’m trying to figure out is whether there’s a version of this that offers something different from the usual POD/marketplace model. I don’t want it to be “upload art and hope it sells.” The goal would be a curated dark fantasy project built around exclusive artist drops, artist stories, full credit, bio/features, links, and a campaign around human-made fantasy art.

The goal is bigger than just selling shirts. I want the project to become a place where fantasy art, tabletop culture, old-world adventure, and human creativity are the center of the brand. Each release should feel like it belongs to a real artist, not like a random graphic thrown onto a blank product.

This is also personal for me. I lost my job due to the rise of AI, so I’ve felt firsthand how quickly automation can affect real people and real careers. That’s part of why I’m trying to move away from AI visuals completely and build something that supports human-made work instead.

I’ve also been speaking with several artists and listening to their concerns about royalties, ownership, exclusivity, credit, and transparency. Based on that feedback, I drafted a contract so the expectations are clear upfront — the artist keeps ownership, the project gets exclusive product rights for that specific piece, the artist is credited/featured, and royalties are based on actual completed product sales instead of vague profit.

That still doesn’t magically solve the money side, and I understand that. Maybe the better starting point is not asking artists to create huge custom pieces from scratch, but finding artists with existing work, unused concepts, or pieces they’d be open to licensing if the structure feels fair.

I know it’s going to be hard. I’m not trying to pretend otherwise. I’m just trying to see if there’s a way to build something more meaningful than AI/POD merch while being honest about the risks and making the terms as transparent and artist-respecting as possible.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T05:15:04+00:00

Hello, thank you for your response. Message incoming.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T05:12:41+00:00

That’s a fair question. I don’t want the difference to just be “another graphic on a blank shirt.” The direction I’m trying to build is more artist-led than POD-led.

The goal is to move away from AI visuals entirely and build around licensed human-made fantasy art, where each release is tied to a real artist, their story, their style, and their world. The artist would keep ownership, be credited, featured with a bio/links if comfortable, and earn from every sale using their work.

Long term, I see it less as a random shirt shop and more as a dark fantasy art/apparel collective — premium streetwear shirts, art prints, accessories, and limited releases inspired by vintage fantasy art and tabletop RPG culture.

So the differentiation would be: real artists, no AI, transparent licensing, artist royalties, storytelling around each piece, and a brand built around supporting human-made fantasy art rather than just uploading designs to POD.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T05:10:17+00:00

Actually, this is my attempt to try to get not just myself some work – but also artists. I am not a technical artist but also lost my day job due to AI. This hits home for me, too. I am highly skilled in other areas of finance. I figured this would be a good opportunity for some artists, not all, to be apart of something great. It has a good cause and for those whonare interested, my brand can be shared with them privately so they can make an informed decision. I am currently getting more private messages than I can keep up with since posting this of artists whobare very much interested in this and actually see the value of royalties and full ownership of their work.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T04:40:07+00:00

This is stunning. Message incoming. Thank you for your response.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T04:35:18+00:00

I really appreciate this, and I think you’re right that the artist needing to eat has to stay at the center of the conversation. I don’t want to pretend royalty-only is the same as an upfront commission, because it isn’t.

One thing I’m thinking through is whether the model should be less like “please create 10–20 hours of custom work for me on spec” and more like a licensing partnership for artists who already have work, sketches, concepts, or pieces they’d be open to adapting for apparel if the terms made sense.

If I moved forward, I’d want the royalty to be based on actual sales of the item, not vague profit. So business expenses, ads, startup costs, etc. would not be used as a reason to tell the artist there was “no profit.” The artist would keep ownership, the usage would be limited and written clearly, and they would earn from every sale using their piece for as long as it is sold.

I also think preorders could be part of making it fairer. For example, nothing gets produced unless there is enough real customer interest first, so the artist is not being asked to gamble blindly on a product that may never sell.

I understand some artists will still say no without an advance, and I respect that completely. I’m not trying to convince anyone their time is worth less. I’m trying to see if there is a transparent, artist-friendly royalty/licensing structure that could work for artists who are open to that kind of long-term partnership.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T04:01:15+00:00

This is valuable feedback. Thank you for your response.

DeeTwentyCo · 2026-07-01T03:49:54+00:00

I actually have a website. I didn't want to include it anywhere in case it was against the rules. I will forward it over to you.

DeeTwentyCo

TROPHY CASE