AI is coming for creators, I don't know how to fight back.
I don't have an answer for it, but it's terrifying and frustrating and exhausting.
Welcome to Creative Constructs, a newsletter that shares systems, tools, and strategies for creative thinkers, alongside the musings of a multi-disciplinary artist and author fascinated by creativity. (Here’s what Creative Constructs is all about.)
I spent the last few weeks desperately trying to come up with a topic for this newsletter that wasn’t just me ranting about the various forms of gratuitous, irresponsible, unethical, and/or depressing uses of AI that I keep encountering in the world of creativity and business. I really did try. I promise.
But I just kept coming up with MORE rants about how AI is hurting creatives. So I gave up fighting and got to writing. (Sorry, not sorry.)
AI was built using Intellectual Property stolen from creators
It’s easy to anthropomorphise AI tools: to describe them in human terms and assign misplaced autonomy to do things like “think” or “say” or “feel” or “create.” (Truth be told, most companies probably want us to think this way, which is why they give their tools human names, like Siri, Alexa, or Claude.)
But these tools are not people. AI tools do not “think” in the way we do. Instead, these tools are programmed to remix, reorganize, and imitate the massive body of source materials they are trained on to compose answers to user questions, even if answering those questions requires fabricating information.
And how did these companies find enough written material to train their AI tools? They stole it.
“OpenAI’s training data incorporated over 300,000 books, including from illegal ‘shadow libraries’ that offer copyrighted books without permission.” (Reuters)
“Anthropic downloaded for free millions of copyrighted books in digital form from pirate sites on the internet” (NPR)
“The International Confederation of Music Publishers… which represents 90% of the world’s commercially released music… has documented tens of millions of works being infringed daily.” (Technology Magazine)
“These AI tools are being used in ways that will displace lyric writers and undermine existing royalty streams,” says a spokesperson from Concord, one of the companies bringing the lawsuit against the AI developers. “Although large language model lyrics may never have the creativity of a human, LLMs trained on human lyrics coupled with their speed, scale and economy, will undermine the incentive to create new art.”
Tons of lawsuits are currently working their way through the legal system, seeking to address the mass theft of intellectual property perpetrated by these tools. I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t attempt to interpret any of the early rulings, but suffice it to say:
There’s been a truly unfathomable amount of IP theft by AI companies
Creatives and artists have had their IP stolen, with no financial compensation
AI companies have gone largely unpunished (to date) for their blatant theft
AI companies will continue to profit from the technology built upon that theft
Creatives and artists continue to find their earning capacity hurt by AI
This quote from actor, director, writer, and creator-advocate Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in an Op-Ed in Hollywood Reporter, sums it up really well:
“What if AI companies are just allowed to keep going with this unethical practice? … No one can predict the future, but it only stands to reason that this would eventually spell the end of any other commercial content business. Film and television, for sure. Professional journalism, as well. The new and vibrant creator economy of today’s YouTubers, podcasters, newsletter writers, all gone. … Because as long as an AI company can copy all of our content into their model at no cost and spit out quasi-new content for close to no cost, there’s no logical business case for paying human creators anymore.”
AI threatens SO many more creative fields than we realize
This theft hurts anyone who makes their money from the things they create, the ideas in their heads, or the way people help ideas come to life: Authors. Musicians. Vocalists. Lyricists. Music Producers. Podcasters. TV & Film Writers. Documentary Filmmakers. Film Editors. Photographers. Voiceover Artists. Actors. Audio Editors. Painters. Graphic Designers. Fashion Designers. Models. Architects. Illustrators. Game Designers. Web designers. Software Engineers. Consultants. Costume Designers. Marketing Strategists. The list goes on…
Because every time a brand decides they’ll “just use an AI-generated image” for an upcoming campaign instead of setting up a product photoshoot with real creatives, it’s not just a single photographer who loses out on paid work…
It’s also the models who didn’t get hired to star in the shoot. And the makeup artists and hairstylists and costume designers who didn’t get hired to prep the models. And the set designers, and the lighting team, and the prop team didn’t get hired to prep the space for the shoot. And the budding fashion designer, up-and-coming jewelry designer, and indie furniture designer who didn’t get their big break by having their creations featured in the shoot. And don’t forget the person whose photo studio didn’t get rented out that day, and the local coffee shop nobody went to that morning, and the local restaurant that didn’t cater lunch for the crew.
It’s depressing. I know. I’m sorry. And I don’t have an answer for it. But I think recognizing the truly massive scale of the impact is an important first step to deciding what we can and should do about it, and deciding where we will personally be allowing AI into our lives and workflows, and where we’ll push back.
The “AI vs. Human” quality debate is actually irrelevant
There’s plenty of debate about whether AI can actually produce creative outputs—music, movies, images, books, etc.—that can compete with human creatives. And while the pure volume of AI slop out there should be an indicator that there’s no real competition for the unique human capacity for original creative thought, it actually signals a much bigger issue to me:
It doesn’t matter if AI can actually compete with human creators if decision-makers believe it can.
Regardless of whether decision makers believe that AI output is truly comparable to what human creatives produce, that it’s “close enough,” that it’s “at least worth trying,” or that it’s lower quality but still worth the cost savings, the outcome is the same: actual human creators and creatives go unpaid.
And that’s terrifying.
In journalism school, we learned how the perception of a conflict of interest could be even more dangerous than an actual conflict of interest.
When there’s an actual conflict of interest (maybe you get assigned to report a story about the company that your partner works for), you can DO something about it to fix it: you disclose the conflict to an editor and they can re-assign the story to someone without a personal connection. Problem solved.
When there’s a perceived conflict of interest (maybe readers believe you’re showing favoritism to a company you covered), your value has already been called into question, so anything you do or say afterward tends to work against you.
It feels like the same thing is happening here: Because AI has caused decision-makers to question the value of human creators, anything creatives say to try to combat that belief is dismissed as defensive, desperate, or inaccurate.
I look at the onslaught of AI slop, and I can see that audiences are being trained to doubt, distrust, devalue, and ignore everything they see. But AI advocates will say I’m being alarmist.
I can predict that decision-makers will have to learn the hard way that if they continue to shove inaccurate, low-value, undifferentiated garbage down their audience’s throats, eventually that audience will close their mouths. But AI advocated will say I’m just bitter.
I can share my hope that the pendulum will swing back toward decision-makers seeing that audiences value the truly unique, the emotional, the original, the human. But I’ll be called a “Pollyanna,” or an “AI hater,” or a “luddite.”
Call me what you will. I just hope, once that pendulum swings back—which I truly hope it does—that the world’s willingness or ability to consume the things we create hasn’t been damaged beyond repair, and that the world’s creatives haven’t been forced to retool to the point where they can’t create the beautiful and incredible things that they once did.
Creative Sparks
“How to be a writer with a day job,” is addressed to writers, but I think it’s a worthy read for creatives of all types trying to fit creative work in amongst other things. The author of the essay (Mason of Subtle Maneuvers) also has a book on this topic coming soon, too!
“The Specialist vs The Generalist” by Josh Patrick explores the two perspective types through a business lens, but it also applies to creatives!
“God Knows Best” is a nice reflection on letting go of what you think a piece or project needs in service of what it actually needs to fulfill its purpose. If you’re in an editing/feedback season, this piece will probably resonate.
“Grounding Your Story with Froissage” by Amy Jane Williams is an interesting exploration of a fun art technique that anyone can try.
If you find yourself wanting creative sparks like this on a more regular basis, be sure to check out my snail mail club, Creative Side Quest, where I send out monthly physical envelopes with fun and approachable creative missions and prompts inside!
More From Me:
I’ve got upcoming keynotes in Asheville (NC), Anaheim (CA), Des Moines (Iowa), and more. Check out my website for more info.
I’ve been reading more than ever this year thanks to my library card. (Support your local library!) Just finished book #22 of 2026. What are you reading?
In case you missed it, I launched a monthly snail mail club, called Creative Side Quest, where I’ll send an actual physical envelope with a creative prompt/mission and some other inspirational goodies to your mailbox each month! Learn more here:
The Creative Constructs newsletter is a labor of love supported by paid subscribers and occasional affiliate links, which offer me a small commission on sales of products I already love and would recommend anyway. Thank you for your ongoing support.
The theft argument is worth re-examining. AI can't enjoy your work, reproduce it, or distribute it; it learned patterns and moved on. You still have your book. That's closer to value extraction without compensation than theft, which is a real grievance but a different problem with different solutions.
The solution that's actually in your hands: mastery. Your creative skills: taste, judgment, knowing what works and why, are exactly what AI can't produce on its own. It has access to everything ever written and can't do a thing with it until someone with genuine creative intelligence points it at a problem. That's you.
The creators being displaced are doing commodity work. The ones who understand their craft deeply enough to direct AI at scale aren't being replaced. They're running the writing room.
The question isn't how to fight AI. It's whether you understand your own craft well enough to be the one holding the stick.
What I keep coming back to is that the question isn't really about fighting back — it's about understanding what AI genuinely can't replace. The relationships, the context, the trust a client builds with someone who understands their brand at a deeper level. That part isn't automated. Not in the same way.