Congratulations to the winners ✨

All the entries are very impressive, and everyone's efforts deserve to be recognized.

However, within the framework of a "competition", with clearly defined rules, it is difficult to accept that entries that violate the rules win prizes.

A contest of a large organization, with a big prize; a contest with a jury, an inspection board and strict rules, let an AI work enter the voting round, and let works that violate the rules win the highest prize?

I ask myself: What are the rules for? Is their inspection board really good at its job and responsibility?

While there are other participants who have followed the rules and their responsibilities.

@Everyone As someone who has entered this contest multiple times, I'm shocked and disappointed. The art category winner didn't submit the required making-of video, I checked. It's unfair that I had to document my entire process, yet She won the trip to Korea without meeting this essential rule. I'm speechless. 😭😭

Submission Guidelines : submit both the original images and a making-of video

- Image: Drawn on paper measuring 210mm × 297mm (A4, ISO 216 standard) and then scanned

- Computer graphics: Created at a resolution of 2953 x 4169 pixels and 300 dpi

- Making-of video: Produced in Full HD (1920x1080) resolution and under 5 minutes long

The rules explicitly obligated all artists to submit a "making of" video alongside their finished artwork. This was not a suggestion or an optional extra; it was a strict requirement for a valid entry. The making-of video and the final artwork had to be submitted together, at the same time. It is not sufficient for a participant to now provide proof or evidence that they created the work. The deadline for this proof was the moment of submission. Allowing someone to retroactively fulfill a mandatory requirement undermines the entire rulebook and is unfair to everyone…

I would like to defend myself because I received many attacking comments about my second-place result in the Art & Craft category, claiming that my video exceeded the 5-minute “rule.” However, this is clearly listed as a guideline, not a criterion. I also received criticism suggesting that “influencers” voted me into second place. This is unfounded. I am not an influencer, and I was not even aware of the voting process.

It is also noteworthy that these attacks are directed only at the 2nd and 3rd place winners, while one of the actual criteria states that the use of AI may result in disqualification. This is highly relevant, as the first-place entry raises serious suspicion: a brand-new art style (based on her social media posts) and a poem allegedly written in three languages. Additionally, another criterion requires a “make-of” video showing the creation process of the artwork, which was not…

The final winner in art category did not follow the rules of the competition. According to the competition's established guidelines, creating a making-of video was a compulsory condition for all entries in the art category. It is difficult to understand how the first-prize winner was selected despite not submitting this required video. The participant in question only uploaded a YouTube video that displays the final work through a simple slideshow of images, which does not constitute a making-of as per the rules and therefore does not fulfill this fundamental requirement. We ask for fairness in this matter; every contestant invested significant effort in creating genuine process videos. Awarding the top prize to someone who bypassed the official regulations is deeply unfair. Numerous participants dedicated considerable work to their making-of videos, and my intention is not to target the winner personally, but to advocate for the respect and recognition that al…