KatsBits Community

"Blender to Roblox: Which Format, OBJ, FBX or GLTF?" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/blender-roblox-which-format/ a quick look at the mesh (model) formats Roblox supports - originally a 'note to self' worth writing up.

Aside from the accusations of "Inauthentic Content", it appear YouTube channels are also getting hit if their main Google Accounts get flagged for violating Googles Terms of Services or Community Guidelines. Because there's so many conditions Users have to be aware of, it's easy to see how AI, if the assumptions are correct that Google/YouTube are actively using AI to search for violations, could find literally any reason to, at the very least, demonetise, demote, deprioritise and eventually disable accounts.

When this happens, because in Google's eyes there would be a chain-of-escalatory-custody (deprioritise > demote > demonetise > disablement > deletion) they have a built in rationalisation for eventually disabling and deleting accounts and their content. If it gets to that point, even if Users were able to retrieve their accounts, it would be of little use because deleting strips content and subscribers, making the accounts practically worthless.

Google holds all the cards, they always have.

There's an interesting Reddit post in r/imvu titled "Why IMVU arguments feel way more personal than they should and what's actually happening psychologically" (yes, we know, its Reddit. Ed.) that proposes something the author refers to as the "Identity Buffer Theory".

QuoteOn IMVU, the avatar acts as a psychological buffer which transforms social and emotional expression. When users interact through a created online persona instead of in face-to-face settings, their fear of embarrassment, rejection, exposure, or judgment is diminished. The avatar is not necessarily a fictional persona, but rather it creates an emotional distance which makes it easier to express certain feelings online compared to in real life.

In the post the author argues IMVU avatars function as a psychological buffer to help users process real-life fears like embarrassment, rejection, or judgment, etc., making it easier for them to connect with others.

Over time, however, the buffer degrades as the created avatar becomes deeply integrated with users sense of self, their iRL identity through validation, the habits and relationships they seek out. When these are challenged, these interactions feel intensely personal, leading to the volatile e-drama IMVU has become known for.

While the theory captures something real, it has some limitations in that it tends to conflate one common pattern of behaviour with the overall experience of the platform as a whole, underplaying other ways people might use avatars. Broadly speaking, users typically relate to the avatars in two distinct (though sometimes overlapping) ways;

1. Expressive
For "expressive" users, avatars represent a proxy for or an extension of the self. Users project important aspects of their identity, emotions, or idealised self-image onto it. This mode typically involves seeking out validation, belonging, and different affirmations of that idealised self-image. As personal investment here is high, challenges to the avatar (or the persona it represents) are experienced as personal attacks on the self. This group drives much of the intense emotional drama, jealously, escalations etc., seem in IMVU.

2. Imaginative
For "imaginative" users, avatars function primarily as an outlet or tool for creativity, for role-play, storytelling, and social experimentation. Avatars are treated more like a character or instrument for fun and interaction. Because of this, they are better able to separate the created digital proxy from their core identity, so conflicts or challenges are more likely to be absorbed as part of the game rather than personal threats.

The distinction matters because the motivational difference finds that expressive users tend to naturally show higher predispositions towards volatility as the emotional stakes in their avatar, the personal investment, are greater. While on the other hand, imaginative users tend to be more resilient to friction (perceived or real).

With that said, cross-over does exist, dedicated role-players can readily recount stories of "unhinged" individuals derailing sessions, but the difference in the motivational core matters. For general users, the upshot is that when navigating virtual spaces, strong or highly salient group identity signals are often a reliable indicators of predispositional red-flags and, by extension, higher potential for drama that need to be watched for.

There's a troubling trend on YouTube of seemingly legitimate accounts being hit with "inauthentic content" strikes that take them down[1]. Appeals don't seem to make any difference, especially for smaller channels that don't have access to an 'agent', so nothing seems to help.

If the situation is run past Ask Studio^[2] (YouTube's AI helper) it'll respond with typical information pulled from the "Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content" and the "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" policies that should explicitly outline and define what "inauthentic content" is. Instead searching YouTube Help all that's pulled back is an 'update' message where "inauthentic content" is referenced in relation to renaming a previously disclosed "repetitious content" guideline^[3]. Except that doesn't exist either, at least not as a specifically delineated "Repetitious Content" policy.

Instead what we have is a lot of implied and half explained language where "repetitious" is used to define content in various contexts that cannot be monetised, "content must be original and non-repetitious", as a paragraphed explainer on "What kind of content can I monetize?", but no distinct policy definition as the note on "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" implies.

It should be a relatively easy omission to fix by publishing a document where "Inauthentic Content" is a main page or sub-heading that has its own distinct explanation below. Simple. Of course doing that would mean YouTube no longer being able to rely on vague posting about and equally vague interpretation of their monetisation policies, thus giving them all the latitude needed to respond to disputes with more boiler-plate disclosing vague-posting.

Getting hit by this looks like the user is left with little proper recourse.

---

Footnotes
[1] the "strikes" and "take down['s]" in question seem largely related to demonetisation, flagged accounts are being removed from the monetisation program; ad revenue share, paid chats, subscriptions etc. is being revoked, and not necessarily account closure (although this does appear to be happening in some instances).

[2] Ask Studio provides the following explanation; Definition of Inauthentic Content: This refers to mass-produced or repetitive content that shows little to no variation across videos or is easily replicable at scale. Examples include content produced using a template, image slideshows with minimal commentary, or readings of non-original materials.

[3] "inauthentic content" 15 July 2025: We're making a minor update to our 'repetitious content' policy to better clarify that this includes content that is repetitive or mass-produced. We are also renaming this policy from 'repetitious content' to 'inauthentic content'. This type of content has always been ineligible for monetisation under our existing policies, where creators are rewarded for original and authentic content. There is no change to our reused content policy, which reviews content like commentary, clips, compilations and reaction videos.

"Toolkit - Furniture Node Setup for Classic" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/toolkit-furniture-nodes-classic/ taking a quick look at fixing the incorrectly positioned furniture Handle issue in IMVU Classic Editor/Client when using the Toolkit for Blender

The following is opinion and should not be construed as Legal advice. Consult appropriately qualified council on Copyright or other matters of law.

---

Introduction
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies trained on vast datasets scraped from the internet has sparked intense debate about the rights and responsibilities of artists and creators. An argument here suggests that artists might be "to blame" for AI's growth because they freely post their work on platforms whose Terms of Service (ToS) allow broad use of content, including AI training.

While this argument might oversimplify complex ethical and legal issues, it does raise an essential truth: artists and creators have a clear and critical responsibility to proactively protect their work in today's digital ecosystem.

This article explores the legal and practical rationale behind this responsibility, helping creators understand how their choices impact the use of their content by third-parties, and what steps they might be able to take that helps safeguard their intellectual property.

The Legal Reality of Terms of Service Agreements
When artists upload their work to social media, content-sharing platforms, or other online services, they are required to agree to Terms of Service. These agreements often grant platforms broad non-exclusive, royalty-free rights to use, distribute, and (re)license content that, importantly, might also then be extend to include exploitation by AI companies that make use of publicly available data for training models.

Informed Consent Is a Legal Obligation
Legally, users are presumed to have read and understood terms laid out in the agreements they sign, agree with or consent to when clicking "Submit". Courts generally do not accept ignorance of contract terms as a valid defence; absent demonstrable coercion, fraud, or undue influence, agreeing to the ToS binds the user to its terms. This means:

• Artists are responsible for understanding the agreements they enter into.
• Failure to read or comprehend the ToS does not absolve them of the consequences.

This legal principle places a clear onus on creators to be informed about how their content may be used once uploaded.

Copyright Law and the Duty to Protect Your Work
Copyright law further reinforces this responsibility, of creators being obligated to actively safeguard their intellectual property. In many jurisdictions, copyright holders must police their rights to prevent infringement as failure to do so can be interpreted as implicit consent or waiver of those rights.

What This Means for Artists

• Active enforcement: Creators should monitor how their work is used and take action against unauthorized use.
• Use of protective tools: Technologies such as digital watermarks, content filters, and licensing platforms can help control distribution.
• Legal recourse: Understanding and utilizing copyright law is essential to protect against misuse.

The combination of ToS agreements and copyright law means artists must be vigilant and proactive to maintain control over their creations.

Distinguishing Responsibility from Blame
It is important to differentiate between responsibility and blame:

• Responsibility is a legal and practical duty. Artists have a responsibility to understand agreements and protect their work.
• Blame carries moral judgment and can be influenced by broader societal and technological factors.

While the ecosystem of AI development involves many actors - platforms, AI companies, policymakers - the responsibility for protecting one's own content remains firmly with the creator.

Practical Steps for Artists and Creators
To navigate this complex landscape, artists should consider the following:

• Read and Understand ToS: Before uploading content, review the platform's terms carefully. Look for clauses about content use, licensing, and AI training.
• Choose Platforms Wisely: Some platforms offer more favourable terms or better content protection tools.
• Use Protective Technologies: Employ watermarks, metadata tagging, and content-blocking tools to deter unauthorized use.
• Monitor Your Work: Regularly search for unauthorized use of your content online.
• Enforce Your Rights: Be prepared to issue takedown notices or pursue legal action if necessary.
• Educate Yourself: Stay informed about copyright law, digital rights management, and emerging AI regulations.

Conclusion
The digital age and AI advancements have transformed how creative content is shared and used. While the debate about who is "to blame" for AI's growth is complex, the responsibility of artists and creators to protect their work is clear and legally grounded. By understanding the terms they agree to, actively safeguarding their content, and enforcing their rights, creators can better control their intellectual property in an evolving digital landscape.

Empowering artists with knowledge and tools is essential to ensure their creativity is respected and fairly used in the age of AI.

"Legacy ASE Exporter + Batch (Add-on)" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/legacy-ase-exporter/ updated the very old ASE export script(s) for legacy content creation (idtech et al). Now includes Collection batching (to individual *.ase files) and axis flipping... Compatible with Blender 4.x & 5.x

Minor update to the FBX Batcher + Rotation add-on, script needed a few tweaks to the UI and rotation values. Should be fixed now.

Installation

• Remove previous install and shut down Blender.
• (Re)open Blender and install the FBX Export Add-on
• Restart Blender

A bit fiddly but this ensures Blender clears the *.py script and Add-on repository (cache), forcing it to use the latest install instead of pulling in the cached version.

"Unity FBX Model Import Rotation Fix" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/unity-rotation-fix/ taking a quick look at fixing Unity auto-rotating FBX models on import despite correct axes being set... grrrr

Having just posted a tutorial (Unity FBX Model Import Rotation Fix) on a particular way to work with, or around, the problem of Unity constantly auto-rotating models despite being exported with the correct orientation axes (Y/up, Z/Forward), a couple of comments suggested the solution to this was simply a matter of "changing the export settings", the implication being the tutorial is wrong because its not explaining the "right" way to do something, rather than it outlining what to do when the "right" thing doesn't work.

This is the "process mindset" in action; it sees a problem and presumes it can be fixed by simply making sure the correct settings are used. For Unity model import, that's just making sure to set the axes correctly, because of course that's the problem.

Except, Unity uses a heuristic algorithm that analyses meshes during import beyond the XYZ axes values that, if it thinks a mesh is wrong, it will apply the coordinate fix to compensate, rotating the model on one or more axes, regardless (for Blender that's typically -90° around the X axis).

When this happens, the "process mindset" hits a wall because it can't comfortably step outside the problem. Instead, the it looks at the rotation settings and can't figure out what the problem is, largely because it doesn't understand the entirety of the process its locked in to, that the issue may be being caused by something outside their segmented understanding of the process itself - "it worked before, why isn't it working now?".

The "problem-solving mindset" sees the same problem - correct axes, failed import - and asks whether something else is going on, and whether there's another way to get to the same end result. Often this might not be the procedurally "correct" way to do something, getting models to behave correctly in Unity, but it'll work.

To the "process mindset" folks, this is a bad thing, because its not the correct thing, even though it works fine and produces the desired end result. And they will let everyone know.

For the "problem-solving mindset" they'll make a note of the problem and how it was solved so it can be used the next time the issue occurs. And they too, might let everyone know.

Both attitudes, or approaches, have their place; the "process mindset" tends to keep standards high or locked-in, whereas the "problem-solving" mindset remains flexible and keeps things moving when set processes don't work or match reality.

Learning to recognise the difference is a part of the craft no one really says anything about.

P.S. there's obviously a difference between "problem solving" and just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks.