OPEN LETTER

“The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.” —Oscar Wilde

I, like most, began my obsession with comics at a young age. The first comic I actually remember seeing, as fate would have it, was *Batman #1*. My father operated the family antiques business and, bless his eternal soul, every time I asked, he would remove it from behind his desk, unseal its plastic protector, and let me get my sloppy kid fingers all over it, so I could disappear into the abyss, marvel at the superheroes, and masquerade as the villains within the bowels of the former silk mill on Gold Street in Lakeport, New Hampshire.

Later, I would fall under the spell of *Mad Magazine*, *Eerie*, *Creepy*, and whatever else I could get my growing adolescent hands on. A year after my high school graduation, *The Dark Knight* literally returned, oddly affirming my own worn inner psychology even now, as I count down the months until I can call myself a sexagenarian. Yet, if in this life there is room for one and only one great love, then that must be attributed to *Heavy Metal Magazine*, whose influence can be seen in my first comic published through DriveThru in October 2024.

Regarding that publication, it should be noted that, at the time, there was no requirement for attribution regarding creation method. After signing my exclusive publishing agreement with DriveThru, I went on to produce eight other works, each intended as its own series, with ongoing character struggles presented across a cross-section of narrative and visual styles. I have chosen to call my imprint [Woodmoon Press](https://woodmoon.press), in memory of the late actress Natalie Wood, to whom I am indeed indebted.

I am an AI artist. Every title published by Woodmoon Press contains AI-generated material as part of my creative process. If any attribution states otherwise, it is because I panicked when I believed my work faced immediate deletion. Other than informing me that further work would be prohibited, no actual request has been made of me, apart from a vague mention of alternate or substitute artwork—of which there is plenty, or none, depending upon how one views the situation. At best, I am just as clueless as you may be about how to proceed.

So, here are some ideas.

There is a substantial difference between updating guidelines and imposing a ban. An update ordinarily adds requirements, clarifies expectations, or provides a publisher with a method of compliance. A ban does none of those things. It does not tell me what more I must do; it tells me that nothing I do matters because my contribution is now unworthy of compliance.

This being the case, the burden of explaining and justifying that change rests with DriveThru. DriveThru should identify the contractual basis for applying this prohibition to previously accepted titles. My work did not substantially change. Its creation method did not change. I did not introduce an undisclosed element, abandon a prior representation, or attempt to evade an existing rule before being confronted with the potential loss of my publicly available titles.

The work contained AI-generated material when DriveThru accepted it, when DriveThru required me to classify it, and when DriveThru distributed it to readers. If the work itself did not change, then it is DriveThru’s judgment of that work that changed. That distinction matters. If DriveThru contends that my publications became noncompliant because of something I did, it should identify the act, the affected title, the applicable contractual or policy provision, and the opportunity I was given to correct it.

Instead, DriveThru changed the eligibility of an entire category of previously permitted work. Section 15 — Amendment and Modification** is the provision addressing changes to the agreement. It says Roll20 may:

- revise the agreement at any time;

- provide notice by “reasonable means,” including through its marketplaces or applications; and

- treat continued use of its publishing services as acceptance of a revised agreement and incorporated terms.

Section 15 states that a publisher’s continued use of DriveThru’s publishing services confirms acceptance of a revised agreement and incorporated terms. That mechanism necessarily presupposes some meaningful form of continued use.

The August prohibition presents a fundamental difficulty. It does not impose an additional requirement under which I may continue publishing. It excludes the creation method used throughout my entire catalog and thereby makes continued publishing, in any meaningful sense, impossible.

DriveThru previously accepted that creation method, required its disclosure, and distributed the resulting works. Having acknowledged and accepted that method, DriveThru should explain how it can now rely upon “continued use” as evidence of my acceptance when the new policy eliminates the very publishing activity that continued use would ordinarily describe.

Nor should actions taken solely to preserve my existing interests be treated as acceptance of the prohibition. Accessing my account, corresponding with Partner Relations, receiving accrued earnings, or changing classifications in panic are not evidence that I voluntarily agreed to the elimination of my ability to publish. They are evidence that I was attempting to understand and respond to a situation for which no definite instructions had been provided.

Section 9 of the published exclusive agreement is also relevant. It permits DriveThru, upon written notice, to stop publishing, distributing, or selling a submitted work. However, it also provides that when the affected work is a digital book, the license for that work automatically becomes nonexclusive. If your communications are intended as notice that DriveThru will no longer distribute my digital titles, please confirm the resulting nonexclusive status of each title.

Before that point is reached, I ask that DriveThru maintain the present status of the Woodmoon Press account and catalog while these questions are resolved. I am prepared to correct the classifications I changed in panic, but I require clear written confirmation that making those corrections will not automatically remove the titles from my catalog.

Because customer feedback was specifically mentioned in explaining the decision, please clarify whether that reference was general or whether feedback concerning Woodmoon Press or its publications played any role in this review.

I remain willing to discuss this directly and constructively. I am not asking DriveThru to endorse my work, my tools, or my artistic philosophy. I am asking DriveThru to recognize the relationship it established with an exclusive publisher whose creation method was disclosed, classified, accepted, and distributed under the rules then in effect.

A ban is not merely another update. Applied here, it extinguishes the only form of publishing the agreement supposedly permits me to continue using as evidence of my acceptance. Before DriveThru chooses that result, I ask one final question: Is that truly the road we should choose to travel?

Sincerely,

Mark Ezra Merrill aka kp Buk

Woodmoon Pres

Public references

- [DriveThru Product Standards Guidelines](https://help.drivethrupartners.com/hc/en-us/articles/12780748778135-Product-Standards-Guidelines)

- [Public Zendesk metadata for the Product Standards Guidelines](https://help.drivethrupartners.com/api/v2/help_center/en-us/articles/12780748778135.json)

- [DriveThru Publishing Partner Agreement, Exclusive (2022-09-13)](https://help.drivethrupartners.com/hc/en-us/articles/12780744625303-Publishing-Partner-Agreement-Exclusive-2022-09-13)

*This open letter reflects the records presently available to the author and requests clarification from DriveThru concerning the governing agreement, policy history, and treatment of existing publications.*