A viral illustration offer was called AI: what working artists can keep to show their process

Last checked 12 November 2026. This is an explainer based on public posts and a published study, not legal advice. TimeBinder takes no view on whether any particular artwork was made with AI. TimeBinder does not detect AI, and a dated record is not proof of authorship, ownership or originality.

What was publicly reported

The account below follows the illustrator’s own public posts on X and coverage and commentary by other creators. We have not tried to judge the artwork.

• 29 October 2026. The illustrator, who posts as Chainsawroll, offered one full illustration slot at US$4,500 and three portrait slots at US$800, with the line “Not AI, 100 percent human drawn art.” X’s own count for the post was about 11.0 million impressions when we checked it on 12 November 2026.
• The replies. Many replies argued about the price. Others said the artwork looked AI-generated and circled details as supposed signs; one widely seen reply said an earlier speed-paint video showed the art style changing midway. Those are the accusers’ claims, not findings, and we have not tried to check them. Other artists criticised the accusations as made without proof.
• Her response. She said she is “staunchly against gen ai” and would never use it. On 30 October she posted a full time-lapse of an earlier illustration on YouTube so viewers could see how it was made.
• Commentary. A LinkedIn post by illustrator Mike Kevan argued that the onus is now on artists to keep evidence of their process, adding “layers keep you safe”.

Pricing and authenticity are separate questions. This article is about the second one, and about what any working artist can do so that a doubt can be answered with evidence rather than argument.

Why “it looks off” is not evidence

A 2024 study by researchers at the University of Chicago and a concept artist (“Organic or Diffused”, ACM CCS 2024) tested how well people and detectors tell human art from AI images. The study’s 13 expert artists reached 83 percent accuracy overall, but about 21 percent of the human artworks they were shown were wrongly labelled AI. The paper reports that many experts were frustrated when they were told they had marked human art as AI.

That is the heart of the problem for artists. Small slips, odd hands and uneven rendering used to suggest a person made the work. Now they can also trigger a doubt. A crowd looking for flaws will find some in almost any piece, which is why a calm, checkable record is more useful than a debate about pixels. Our guide to being falsely accused of using AI art covers the wider plan.

What an artist can show, from strongest to weakest

1. Dated layered or project files. The working file (PSD, Clip Studio, Procreate, Krita and so on) at several stages, each fingerprinted and timestamped when it was saved. These show the piece growing, and a dated record shows each file existed by that time. A flattened export alone shows much less.
2. Sketches, references and early versions. Rough sketches, colour tests and early exports, dated the same way.
3. A time-lapse. Many drawing apps, including Procreate, can record a time-lapse; check your app’s settings and keep the original recording. It is persuasive, but any single item can be challenged, so it works best alongside dated files.
4. Work-in-progress posts. Public posts with platform dates show you were sharing it then. They are easier to dispute than a file with a checkable record.

None of these proves that no AI tool was ever used, and a dated record is not a copyright registration. They give a reviewer something concrete to check. See how artists show when they made something and timestamping for illustrators.

A routine for anyone selling commissions

1. Turn on process recording from the start of a piece, not after a doubt appears.
2. Save a milestone copy at sketch, flats, rendering and final, with a clear name each time. Do not overwrite earlier copies.
3. Date the milestones. Make a fingerprint of each file and have it timestamped. With TimeBinder the fingerprint is made in your browser and the file stays on your device. The free SHA-256 checker shows what a fingerprint is, and how to prove a Procreate illustration existed before a date shows the steps.
4. Keep the files somewhere you control, with a backup that is not the same device. See how to prove a file existed before a certain date.
5. If someone accuses you, reply calmly and offer the records. The calm reply template helps, and the AI accusation casebook shows how other cases unfolded.
6. Do not claim more than you can show. “Here are the dated working files and the recording” is stronger than a flat statement that no AI was involved.

Tools that can help

None of these detects AI or proves authorship. Use what you already have if it does the job.

• Your drawing app’s own time-lapse or history, plus an external drive or another cloud you already use for backups. Not affiliate links.
• Proton Drive (affiliate link) — end-to-end encrypted cloud storage from Proton, with a free plan of 5 GB and, on paid plans such as Drive Plus, a stated 10 years to recover previous file versions (plan details checked on Proton’s site on 12 November 2026; confirm before you rely on them). Layered files and recordings are large, so the free plan may fill quickly. Version history inside any storage service is the provider’s own record, not an independent date, so keep a timestamped fingerprint of the key milestones as well. (Proton’s affiliate terms limit promotion to web content; this mention is on a web page only.)

Sources checked

• Chainsawroll (@chainsawroll), post of 29 October 2026 (UTC) and her follow-up posts of 30–31 October, read on 12 November 2026 (offer, view count, her statements, time-lapse link).
• Mike Kevan, LinkedIn post, 31 October 2026 (commentary on keeping process evidence).
• Ha, Passananti, Bhaskar, Shan, Southen, Zheng and Zhao, “Organic or Diffused: Can We Distinguish Human Art from AI-generated Images?”, ACM CCS 2024 (expert artists 83% accuracy; false positive rate 20.78% on human art).
• Proton, Proton Drive plans, checked 12 November 2026.

A related note for illustrators and studios: Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. v Midjourney is still in discovery, with no ruling on fair use as of late 2026. A dated character sheet or working file shows when that exact file existed; it does not prove copying.

Start dating your working files before anyone doubts them

Your first Pooled TimeBind is free, with no credit card required. After that, TimeBinds start from US$5, and an ASAP TimeBind is US$15. Click here to start, or see plans and pricing.

Related: When an AI animation is accused of copying a studio’s character: what animators should keep.