LONDON (Realist English). As artificial intelligence reshapes the relationship between humans and technology, the question “what does it mean to be a creator in the modern world” is becoming central for the British creative industry. This debate is unfolding against the backdrop of the UK’s desire to simultaneously maintain its status as a global hub for creative industries and realize its ambitions as an AI superpower — the creative sectors contribute 145.8 billion pounds to the British economy, and there is a stable consensus in Whitehall regarding the stimulation of AI growth.
AI as an “Amplifier” of Creativity
Adobe Vice President of International Marketing Simon Morris believes that creativity is inherently a human trait. “It is not something a tool can reproduce,” he states. “AI merely expands the ability of creators to do more. It already increases efficiency, opens new artistic possibilities, allowing creators to push beyond the boundaries of innovation.”
Morris notes that “the most innovative, pioneering work” emerges when creators are maximally empowered to experiment and take risks.
Adobe’s latest “Creator Toolkit” report shows that 87% of creators using creative AI reported accelerated growth in their business or audience, and two-thirds believe creative AI makes them more confident and professional.
Participant in the Adobe Creative Apprentice program Leah Gulben says her attitude toward AI has undergone changes. “I used to be very wary of AI, fearing it would make entry-level design positions redundant. But my experience has shown that reality is far more nuanced. It saved me countless hours of research and Photoshop refinements, allowing me to focus on the meaning of the work and the craft.”
The “AI Crisis” Among Professional Artists
However, the feelings of professional visual artists are fundamentally different. A survey conducted by three researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in April 2026 showed that out of 378 verified professional visual artists, 99% dislike generative AI, and 92% classify it as “strong aversion.” Even more striking: 80% of respondents believe they are competing with this technology.
Artists express deep concern about AI’s impact on their careers: 54% state that AI has reduced their income, 75% — that it threatens job and client security, 90% — that it has reduced earning opportunities. Another 77% reported that AI has negatively affected their professional growth, 61% fear for the future of the profession, 74% — for its sustainability.
The most affected are commercial artists, graphic designers, and concept artists in the entertainment industry, whose work is sometimes completely replaced by images generated by tools such as Midjourney, Adobe Firefly, or DALL-E. One clothing designer and illustrator stated during the survey: “I am trying to leave this field, planning to get a doctorate in a non-art field, because, seeing how I am actively being replaced with ChatGPT, I see no sustainability in my current work.”
Legal War: Artists Against AI Companies
Artists are fighting back in court. Illustrators Sarah Anderson, Karla Ortiz, Kelly McKernan, and others filed a class-action lawsuit in January 2023 against Stability, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI, accusing these companies of unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train image generation models. The case is slowly progressing through the judicial system, with the latest complaint expanding the proposed categories and the scope of alleged violations.
Writer Andrea Bartz, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Anthropic, told The Verge: “I felt violated, shocked, wary. Seeing my works, into which I poured years of heart and soul, turn out to be just one of hundreds of thousands or millions of books stolen by these large technology companies to train algorithms, caused a huge emotional reaction in me.”
Musician Sam Kogon, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Google’s Lyria AI music engine, stated: “They are devaluing our works. They are just giving them away to people for free. This will deprive and weaken the rights of a huge number of musicians.” He considers AI “art” dehumanizing, and creating fake music “the most anti-human act one can commit.”
Collective Action in the Music Industry
In June 2026, a global alliance of artists, songwriters, and music managers sent a warning to record companies and publishers demanding an end to the abuse of their rights in AI deals. The open letter, coordinated by the European Music Managers Alliance and signed by 31 organizations, put forward three main principles.
Consent and control: artists and songwriters must have the right to say “no” to the use of “their music by AI systems.” Fair compensation: it must be clearly defined what share of revenue goes to creators, what share to record companies/publishers, and what share to AI companies. Clarity and transparency: before any AI-related deal, clear, timely, and understandable information must be provided.
CEO of the Music Managers Forum Annabella Coldrick stated: “On the issue of AI licensing, artists, songwriters, and managers, together with the broader music industry, stand on the principle of consent — LLM models must not be trained on others’ rights. With this open letter, we are simply asking our partners in recording and publishing to show the same courtesy. These rights are not something you can sell.”
Boundaries of Copyright: Human Authorship Remains Central
In the field of copyright, the US Supreme Court in March 2026 declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, confirming the requirement of human authorship for copyright protection. The US Copyright Office policy guidance clearly states: “If it is determined that the work was created by a non-human, the Office will refuse registration.”
The Office distinguishes AI as an auxiliary creative tool for humans from AI as a replacement for human creativity. Works created using human prompts and human editing may be protected by copyright. For example, the Office approved the registration of a short film created with AI — the author generated 2D background and character images using DALL-E, and then human 3D animators and voice actors completed the work.
However, simply entering prompts into an AI tool to render or stylize an image is insufficient to establish the human involvement required for copyright protection. The Office emphasizes that protection applies only when a human exercises final creative control.
Alternative Path: Fair Trade Licensing
Beyond the confrontational legal war, some platforms are exploring alternative models based on consent. LANDR in July 2026 expanded its “Fair Trade AI” licensing program, offering an advance payment fund of 1 million dollars and increasing artists’ share of licensing revenue from 20% to 25%. The program has grown to more than 30,000 participating artists and hundreds of thousands of tracks opting in.
LANDR CEO Pascal Pilon stated: “The conversation about AI and music is almost entirely focused on what creators will lose. We are proving that there is another path, built on consent and providing artists with regular income.”
The Pope’s Warning: “Simulation,” Not “Creation”
In February 2026, Pope Leo XIV, in a message for the World Day of Social Communications, issued a warning that goes beyond technical and theological boundaries. He titled the message “Protect the Human Voice and Face,” noting that AI can “simulate human voices and faces, wisdom and knowledge, empathy and friendship” — but the verb here is “simulate,” not “create.”
The message warns: “A large part of the human creative industry risks being dismantled and replaced, labeled ‘AI-driven,’ turning people into passive consumers of unthought thoughts, anonymous products, without a father, without love. And humanity’s masterpieces in music, art, and literature are reduced to a training ground for machines.”
Outlook
The creative industry is at a crossroads. On the one hand, AI tools provide creators with unprecedented efficiency gains and expanded possibilities; on the other, professional artists face real threats of declining income, job replacement, and uncompensated use of their works.
The legal framework is slowly adapting: copyright law insists on the central place of human authorship, but the legality of mass AI training is still being tested in several jurisdictions. The music industry is forming a dual-track structure — major labels conclude licensing agreements with AI companies, while independent artists through collective action defend the core principles of consent, compensation, and transparency.
As Morris of Adobe noted, “creativity is inherently a human trait.” The question is how value will be redistributed in the creative economy when this human trait is absorbed, copied, and commodified by algorithms. The resistance of artists, the evolution of legislation, and the search for alternative licensing models will jointly determine the answer to this question.
