Graphic by Alan Smithee
I'm not an AI expert, not by a long shot. In fact, I barely understand it, but as a creative professional with over three decades of experience, the topic of artificial intelligence comes up daily. Where do we begin with something this big and uncertain? Perhaps with the simplest of clichés...
AI is just a Tool
AI is just a tool. Like any tool, its value depends entirely on how we use it. A hammer can build a home; however, it can also, when used maliciously, take someone's life. Similarly, AI can enhance our creative endeavors or threaten livelihoods; The latter is a valid reason for concern.
This has all Happened Before
Technology transforming creative industries isn't new. I began my career in the mid-90s, a pivotal time when computers disrupted traditional graphic design methods. I recall cutting rubylith, creating color separations, hand-drawing comps, and performing manual paste-ups. My grandfather experienced an even more abrupt shift. He was a layout artist at a small-town newspaper in northern Minnesota, spending decades carefully assembling each edition by hand. The day after he retired, his entire department was replaced by a single Macintosh running QuarkXPress operated by one recent college graduate. Technology didn't just streamline processes; it eliminated skilled roles overnight. But to that small-town newspaper, they saved hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with a very small investment in a new, seemingly innocent technology.
Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression - including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents - it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.
Similar disruptions occurred with Photoshop, democratizing photo manipulation, and digital typography in QuarkXPress and InDesign, diminishing the role of expert typesetters. AI is following the same pattern. It offers powerful capabilities to a broader audience. Consequently, it displaces established professionals in its wake.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
But let's not sugarcoat this. AI's utility is uniquely tied to ethical and legal issues, notably copyright infringement. AI trains on existing human creativity, whether it be the written word, art, photography, illustration, code, and so much more. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, acknowledged this explicitly in testimony to the British Parliament:
"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression - including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents - it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials."
This embarrassing admission highlights the ethical issue. AI must draw from humanity's collective creative output to generate something new, and it's doing so without explicit consent or compensation.
This is a problem and the reason copyright law exists in the first place. Copyright law is designed to provide creators with exclusive rights to profit from their works. Financial rewards motivate authors, musicians, filmmakers, software developers, and artists to invest time, resources, and talent into creating original works. More importantly, copyright law grants creators control over how their work is used, reproduced, and distributed, enabling them to effectively monetize their creative efforts. Without copyright protections, third parties could easily profit from creators' works without compensation (ahem).
Denying artists these protections harms us as a society. Creators need to be able to publish, perform, and disseminate their work with confidence. Simply put, copyright law exists to incentivize creators while the public benefits from widespread access to creative works, ultimately leading to greater innovation, cultural advancement, and societal enrichment.
The flipside of the argument is that copyrighted materials eventually fall into the public domain. Our copyright law framework openly acknowledges that creative works should be protected for a limited time, allowing creators to benefit and recoup costs. However, these works also need to return to the public domain so they can continue to foster further creativity, innovation, and iteration.
However, AI's business model is based on bypassing that process and jumping to the front of the line. They seek exclusive access to everything now so they can iterate on it immediately and exploit it for profit while presenting it as a public good, with copyright law and creators being disregarded.
A Hint of Hypocrisy
To be entirely fair to the argument, there are examples of humans doing this the old-fashioned way. Good artists borrow, but great artists steal. Isn't that what Picasso said? He is right; art survives and grows on inspiration and iteration. So, does it matter if a machine does it? I can't help but think about the Supreme Court's decision in 2023 regarding the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith case. It was a significant case, emphasizing that even prominent, well-known artists like Warhol are subject to copyright limitations. In short, the Court voted in a 7-2 decision siding with Goldsmith that Warhol's use of her photograph was not sufficiently transformative enough to qualify as fair use. An even more apt example is Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama "Hope" poster based on an Associated Press (AP) photograph by Mannie Garcia. The case was ultimately settled out of court, and Fairey agreed to share profits and future royalties with The AP. Still, the court heavily hinted that the poster had violated copyright law.
Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” is based on Lynn Goldsmith's Photo of Prince
Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama "Hope" poster is based on an Associated Press (AP) photograph by Mannie Garcia.
I don't have the time or the intelligence to write about every nuance regarding inspiration, style, and homage. I'm simply making the point that humans do this stuff, too. We borrow ahead of our time, cut corners, and use the inspiration of existing works to iterate. And it seems that sometimes - not all the time, but sometimes - we look the other way if a human hand is the violator.
It's important to mention that, as of the writing of this post (May 2025), in the United States, works generated entirely by artificial intelligence without meaningful human input are not eligible for copyright protection. This is grounded in the idea that copyright law protects "original works of authorship" created by human beings. The U.S. Copyright Office and federal courts have consistently upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that human creativity is a fundamental requirement for copyright eligibility.
Congratulations, humans - for now!
Convenience and Other Things
We can say all we want about our protection under the law. Still, the internet, another displacing technology, has greased the wheels for AI and conditioned us to expect speed, convenience, and accessibility over craftsmanship and skill, which AI capitalizes on perfectly. In the creative space, it creates a "McDesign" economy where instant solutions replace processes that once required skill, expertise, and insight. This phenomenon isn't unlike how McDonald's succeeded by prioritizing speed and convenience over nutritional quality and culinary artistry. Design is not and will not be the only victim of this; all industries will suffer, and experts and thought leaders will be pushed aside as we all become those things with a few keystrokes and a well-worded prompt.
Is Good Design Dead?
Are we sacrificing quality in the pursuit of convenience? While AI might produce faster and more accessible results, it often lacks the depth, originality, and thoughtful design cultivated by human creativity and the creative process. Yet society typically prefers the path of least resistance, even if it comes at the expense of diminished quality.
There has always been, and will always be, a large population of people (clients) who don't know how to judge or care about quality in the context of their messaging. They will always gravitate toward the immediate and frictionless approach of having an idea now and realizing it in five minutes. I fear that a creative space will emerge which considers the lack of quality in AI-generated ideas but embraces that limitation and builds concepts around it, much like how enterprising creatives used stock photography in the 90s. Some of it will be good and clever, and those ideas will serve to justify the rest, eventually becoming a viable approach that is normalized over time.
AI's Place in Our Creative Future
Despite fears and criticisms, it's clear AI isn't going anywhere. However, technology adoption isn't always predictable. Consider 3D televisions or virtual reality - both highly touted innovations that failed to gain broad cultural traction. They were cumbersome and required too many extra steps to use reliably. AI could face similar hurdles or unforeseen limitations, at least in its current form. I do not doubt that AI will assist mathematicians and scientists in curing cancer, inventing a better light bulb, or solving other critical human problems. But the jury is still out on whether it can provide accurate information or help me organize my calendar with any degree of accuracy.
Nevertheless, embracing AI with open eyes and cautious optimism is wise. AI can automate repetitive tasks, enhance creative workflows, and enable professionals to concentrate more on conceptual innovation and strategic thinking. As Kevin Kelly, co-founder of Wired magazine, once said:
"Machines are for answers; humans are for questions."
Perhaps the key lies in humans leveraging AI to handle routine tasks, freeing creative minds to pose more profound and insightful questions. However, we must hold ourselves accountable for managing the technology properly, a skill that we as humans seem to lack.
Wrapping it up
Technology is continuously reshaping how we live and work, possessing a unique ability to enhance our lives while also presenting new challenges.
Ironically, even as I write this post, I am leveraging multiple technologies to refine my thoughts: Google for research, word processing software to check for grammar and spelling errors, and I will publish this directly on my website—all of which eliminate the traditional need for research assistants, proofreaders, or an editorial entity to endorse my work. Furthermore, I will trust AI (for this article) to ensure my message is clear, concise, and coherent, eliminating the need for an editor. Finally, I will distribute this article via social media without involving a marketing professional or PR specialist.
Had I employed all the seasoned professionals I mentioned above, they undoubtedly would have identified errors or suggested improvements that I and all these technologies overlooked or failed to address. Yet, the reality remains that this post likely would never have existed had I followed the traditional publication path. This post demonstrates that technological advancement simultaneously empowers creators while disrupting established norms, providing people access to opportunities they typically would not have had. This leads us to one final existential, perhaps unanswerable, question.
Is it ultimately beneficial to have such abundant access to technology? Or does unlimited availability lessen the quality and impact of our collective output?