Asset and character permissions · 3 min read

TensorArt vs CherryPop: Image Permissions or Character Publishing Rights?

Separate model-license checks from character visibility, output ownership and the platform’s license to reuse creations.

On this page
  1. First decide what you intend to publish
  2. Three questions that should stay separate
  3. Keep a short publication record

First decide what you intend to publish

An image file and an interactive character are different objects. A character may include appearance, voice, personality and a starting scenario, and other people may interact with it. A still image can instead be one asset in a larger production.

The CherryPop creator documents public/private character choices and separate chat histories. TensorArt’s handbook is organized around visual models, tools and workflows. That distinction creates different permission questions before anything leaves the workspace.

Three questions that should stay separate

Can I make it visible? A character visibility setting answers whether it appears in public discovery. It does not answer whether your input material was authorized.

What rights does the provider claim? CherryPop’s Terms give users specified creation rights while also granting the platform a broad license over characters and generations. A private character should not be interpreted as an unconditional promise of exclusive platform control.

What permissions attach to the model and references? TensorArt’s Terms make no platform ownership claim over generated outputs, but that is not a universal license for every community model. The selected model’s permissions and rights in reference material still need attention.

Keep a short publication record

For a visual asset, record the source/model version, the input you had permission to use and the intended distribution. For an interactive character, additionally review its description and scenario without relying on private chat context. An original fictional adult identity is clearer to manage than a character assembled from identifiable real-person details.

Keep the deliverable distinct from its production materials. Sending a finished illustration to a collaborator is different from redistributing the model used to make it: TensorArt’s Terms section 3.7 separately requires the original author’s written consent before reprinting a model. Its no-ownership claim in section 3.1 does not erase that rule. Similarly, publishing a CherryPop character lets others interact with it, while the Terms distinguish owning your own character from eliciting generations through someone else’s character. Put the correct object—image, model or interactive character—on the permission record.

Do not imply that a public creation is endorsed by a provider or that an attractive output has been independently cleared for every use. Keep the actual source terms with the project rather than replacing them with a vague label such as “AI-generated.”

If you are publishing a reusable image, model and input permissions are a central part of the TensorArt workflow. If you are publishing a companion people can meet, CherryPop’s visibility and creation-license terms become central too. These are different review tasks, not a legal guarantee that either platform makes every downstream use permissible.

Sources and scope

This comparison separates documented capabilities from editorial interpretation. Source access and any limitations are described in the article; a suggested evaluation is not a claim of completed testing.

← More tensor art articlesHow this was researched