I create content. It's what I studied in college, and it's what I do professionally. Working in an agency makes you hyperaware of where your resources come from.
Subscriptions to iStock, Shutterstock, Getty, and royalty-free music and sound effects libraries aren't cheap for a reason. Proper licensing helps protect you from legal liability.
A designer on my team once used an image from our internal media library that had been sitting there for years. A week after he added it to a simple email marketing piece, Getty sent us a bill and a cease-and-desist notice demanding thousands more than a subscription would have cost.
The worst part? It was a pretty generic image. They could have spent 20 minutes shooting it themselves with our in-house DSLR and saved the company thousands of dollars.
Now enter AI, where things get considerably murkier.
I'm not a lawyer, and the legal side gets complicated, especially when parody and fair use enter the conversation. But even then, it's worth being careful.
Reference-to-video isn't always a one-to-one copy, but where do we draw the line? Camera angles? Complex choreography? Audio? An entire concept?
I recently came across an AI video of a cat beatboxing which had some really positive comments like "Genius" and another "mind blown" and I too was initially impressed.
Then I looked at the creator's profile.
It was a pretty giant technical leap from their other content. How did they create this beatbox? What model did they use? Or was it real? What kind of microphone and audio setup did they use? My brain immediately started deconstructing the production process.
Something wasn't adding up.
So I Googled the concept, and sure enough, I found the original.
The video was built around footage of a real beatboxer, a talented one at that. His timing, his expressions, his original audio, and essentially the entire performance was the same.
The only meaningful change was replacing the performer with a cat.
No credit. No mention of the original artist.
Legal questions aside, what's the right thing to do here? And should we, as content consumers, reward low-effort copies made primarily to attract views?
I like a funny cat video as much as anyone. And spending hours on something doesn't automatically make it more valuable than a clever joke that takes five minutes.
But there's a bigger issue.
When low-effort AI copies consistently rise to the top, they start shaping how people perceive everything created with these tools. Suddenly, someone who spends hours or even days developing an original concept, refining motion, editing, and building something genuinely creative gets lumped into the same category... AI slop.
The technology makes content easier to produce, but it also makes it harder for audiences to recognize the creative work behind it.
And the more derivative content floods our feeds, the harder it becomes to find the people actually doing something interesting.
Do we really want to sift through endless copies of existing performances with the original artist swapped for a furry companion? Or would we rather see something new, inspiring, and at least bordering on original?
Personally, I want to see work that inspires me and challenges me to learn something new. That’s what drives and motivates me the most to create.
My illustration teacher, a master of his craft, used to say:
"Steal from the best, but make it your own."
I've carried that advice throughout my career.
Study the masters. Draw inspiration from their work. Borrow techniques, experiment, and add something uniquely yours.
But don't just trace someone else's work, change the packaging, and collect the praise.
And if that's the best you can do, at least give the original creator some credit.
It's a good reminder to myself to credit the original works I draw inspiration from time to time. It's akin to showing your prompt on a generation as it helps others to learn and grow on their creative journey.
What about you?
Where do you see AI-generated content heading? Toward more original creativity, or an endless cycle of recycled ideas?
Comments