INFO Blog 2: Policies for Creative Works
Published on:
In this post, I discuss the case study examining how copyright struggles to keep up with generative AI. The study asks key questions about authorship, data use, and the future of creative work in an AI-driven world.
New Article
ARTificial: Why Copyright Is Not the Right Policy Tool to Deal with Generative AI
This case study talks about whether copyright laws can really handle the challenges that come with generative AI. It asks big questions about creativity, ownership, and how artists should be treated in a world where AI can make art too.
To reflect on couple discussion questions: Should AI-generated art be protected under copyright? The article explains that AI shouldn’t get copyright because it’s not a human artist. It doesn’t have feelings or intentions, it just mixes patterns together. As someone who loves drawing and designing outfits, this makes sense to me. Copyright feels like something meant for people; for our hearts, our stories, our hands. When I spend hours sketching a design or choosing colors that reflect my culture, that comes from a place an AI can’t reach. So giving AI the same protection feels wrong. I think if anyone should have copyright in AI-generated work, it should be the human guiding it.
Is training AI on copyrighted art wrong, or is it just another form of learning? The article suggests training AI might not technically be “stealing,” because the AI isn’t copying the exact work—it’s learning patterns. I understand the argument, but as a Black Muslim woman who grew up loving art, this hits me differently. When AI is trained on millions of images—including art made by people from communities like mine, it bothers me that the artists don’t even know. It feels like invisible work being taken without permission. When someone uses my style or designs without credit, it hurts. So even if AI “learns,” I still feel artists should have a say in how their work gets used.
Does generative AI hurt creativity or make it grow? Based on the article, AI can both help creativity and threaten it. It depends on how people and industries use it. For me, AI can be fun, I use it sometimes when I’m stuck on a pose or want color ideas for an outfit. But I also see shops and brands replacing real designers with AI, and that scares me. Fashion and art are ways many Black women express ourselves, survive, and build community. If companies can choose AI over us because it’s “cheap,” that’s a real problem. AI won’t stop creativity, but it might stop creatives from getting paid.
If copyright isn’t the right tool, then what should guide AI? The article suggests we need other tools—like data rules, licensing systems, and specific AI policies. This feels right to me. Copyright alone can’t protect us. I want systems where artists, especially small creators, people of color, and independent designers, can know when their work is used to train AI. I want options: the option to say yes, the option to say no, and the option to be compensated. AI companies should be responsible for how they use our creative work. Right now, it feels like they are eating from our table without even greeting us.
After reading and answring some discussion questions, I came up with the question “How would you feel if an AI learned your personal art style or clothing designs and people started using the AI version instead of supporting you?”
I picked this question because it gets to the heart of what many artists fear, that our style, something deeply personal and shaped by our identities and experiences, can be copied by a machine and used without us. As a creative Black Muslim woman, my art and fashion ideas come from my culture, my joy, and my struggles. This question asks readers to think about what it means when technology touches something so personal.
Writing this blog helped me think more deeply about how AI affects artists like me. I love creating; whether it’s a sketch of a girl in a flowing abaya or a bold streetwear look inspired by my roots. AI can be helpful, but it also makes me worry about who gets left behind. This exercise made me reflect not just on the law, but on fairness, community, and the value of human creativity. It reminded me that our voices matter in these conversations, especially those of us whose art is often overlooked or underpaid.