Fully "Democratized" AI Creativity Sounds Nice. Until It Isn't ...
"Delete All IP Law," Say Many In Silicon Valley. But What Happens Then?
Wake up! Time for your weekly “brAIn” dump. Grab your coffee, and let’s go! This week’s “mAIn event” features a reality check on those who call for completely stripped away IP laws in the name of democratized creativity (and what that would really mean). Next, it’s a “must read” guest essAIy (“When AI Erases Work, What Becomes of Us?”) which informed my own story and explores similar themes on a broader scale (definitely worth a read). Finally, the “AI Litigation Tracker” — updates on key GenAI/media IP cases by Avery Williams of The National Law Journal’s #1 ranked rights-holder firm McKool Smith (access the full “Tracker” here via this link). McKool is rich both on the copyright and patent sides of the AI & IP equation.
But First …
Yes, they said the quiet part out loud. Both Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Elon Musk (chaos agent) called for the end of “IP law” (not just copyright law, mind you, but all of it). Dorsey’s exact X post? “Delete all IP law” — to which Musk immediately pounced, “I agree.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman hasn’t gone quite so far … at least not yet … but he’s come close (which is pretty rich coming from a man who now attacks Chinese-made AI chatbot DeepSeek for stealing OpenAI’s IP). Yes, it’s Silicon Valley’s world, and the Creative Community is apparently only living in it.
I. The mAIn Event - Unconstrained, IP-Free Democratized AI Creativity May Sound Nice. Until It Isn’t …
To set the stage for my article, WATCH THIS VIDEO by AI filmmaker PJ Accetturo of a purported Creative Utopia, powered by GenAI (and also just appreciate its level of visual sophistication) (thanks to PJ).
Okay, you’ve watched the video. Now, I’m sure many of you would love to see that kind of world where we’re unconstrained by jobs and tasks in the name of leisure and creativity. It’s a world where all of us — not just professional artists — could easily create and realize the stories and artistic ideas in our heads.
Sounds great, right? Democratized creativity in action!
But How Do We Get There?
Naturally, Silicon Valley tech’s solution to achieve this kind of Utopia is AI. These “AI Accelerationists” preach this kind of gospel where AI takes over virtually all of our laborious tasks to enable us to spend our time to be, among other things, great storytellers instead. All 8 billion of us.
To get there (as I mentioned in my “But First …” section above), many leading tech titans now openly advocate for a world freed from pesky intellectual property laws. That includes Jack “Delete all IP law” Dorsey, Elon “I agree” Musk, and OpenAI’s Altman who openly calls for the erasure of copyright laws to fully unleash his GenAI Kraken. Only then can AI put us on this desired path to full humanoid emancipation and creative democratization, they would say.
But What Happens Then?
Endless leisure and AI-fueled fully democratized creativity, however, may not be quite as good as they first seem. Some, like AI Philosopher Michael Ashley, instead see that kind of complete “freedom” to be ultimately destructive and devastating. He recently wrote this in his The AI Philosopher substack (I feature his full article in Section II below due to its importance):
“What would life become once we remove all its struggles? The first few days — even the first few weeks — would be pleasant. We could sleep in. We could visit all those friends and relatives we never get to see. We could get projects done. We could relax. We could party.
What about the long-term?
My prediction is things would go downhill. Fast. Ever met a child who has been given everything they ever wanted? They end up spoiled — and insufferable …
If AI takes away such character-forming struggle, the results will not be pretty. They will be devastating. We will witness extreme decadence — leading to unimaginable cruelty. Think: the worst excesses of Caligula’s Rome — supercharged due to technological innovation.”
Creative “Destruction” Would Happen Too
I believe an analogous form of “creative destruction” would ultimately follow from unfettered, unbridled, IP-free AI and generative AI access.
First, if those Tech titans had their way and stripped away all IP laws from the AI and generative AI equation — a not unlikely scenario under the current Elon Musk-fueled Trump Administration — then Artist livelihoods would be stripped away too. Now all 8 billion of us could simply take their stories, songs, images, videos and other works that resulted from their creative blood, sweat and tears — no consent and compensation needed. We democratized creators could then flood the zone with all of our own derivative works, overwhelming the markets for the very content we took to fuel our own. Spotify rival Deezer, for example, just reported that nearly 20% of all music on its platform is fully (as in, 100%) AI generated.
But let’s not forget that copyright laws were developed in the first place to benefit both creators and society (i.e., all of us) — to give exclusive economic incentives that drive creative progress and artistic “originality” (which, in turn, drives culture and society forward). If those incentives are stripped away, a world of professional artists and creators go with them (at least a significant portion of them do). In the words of an AI-generated Gloria Gaynor gone wrong, “They won’t survive!” (I just interviewed the real Gloria Gaynor last week, by the way, for my music podcast series The Story Behind The Song).
And as those artists and creators exit stage right, true artistic originality goes with it. (I’ve written about this reality several times, including my recent piece titled, “Does AI Dumb Down Creativity?”).
What Happens To Art Itself?
AI Accelerationists, of course, would say, something like this: “Yes, that’s a shame. But that’s a small price to pay for technological progress and creative democratization.” All of us could create. We’d have more art. More creative works.”
And they’d be right, of course. All of us could create. And we would have more “creative works.” Massively more.
But would art without purpose, inspiration and/or effort really amount to “art”? And would such endless, easy/lazy “creativity” even be individually satisfying? Isn’t it, at least in part, the struggle itself that makes “art” real?
Let’s face it. If the act of creation is too easy — if all artistic struggle is taken away — then most would ultimately simply lose interest and inspiration in it, thereby accelerating a race to the creative bottom.
Even so, and eve if that kind of “creative” process were individually satisfying, how would any of us — this new global generation of emancipated AI-rtists (other than those who already have established fan bases, at least) — even be able to break through the sheer mass of content generated by all of us on the fly?
And, would any of our AI-propelled works be truly “original”?
Although exciting AI-driven exceptions are sure to follow (particularly in the realm of new multi-modal art forms), AI inherently “dumbs down” art (again, I refer you to my “Does AI Dumb Down Creativity?” article for my discussion). Remember, at its core, generative AI essentially only re-assembles the creative works that have gone before it. It isn’t capable of creating something entirely new, as in entirely “original.”
Don’t take this from me. Take it from AI tech leaders like Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind. He says that LLMs lack “true creativity” as they mash together what’s in their training data sets (including millions of copyrighted works). Meanwhile, OpenAI co-founder Andrej Karpathy calls AI LLM models “internet document simulators” that simply recreate text and visuals from websites they’ve scraped.
All of this means that a call for creative Utopia actually leads to creative stagnation — a stagnation that feeds on itself and spirals down into a sea of creative and artistic mediocrity.
So Is This What We Really Want?
Do we really want to live in a world awash in content — “creative works” that may be simply “good enough,” but not anything truly “original”? Just think of all the creative noise generated in a world of infinite artists. “Noise! Noise! Noise!” as the Grinch would say. Could we even find the works that truly “speak” to us? (AI could help, of course, but doubtful fully). And would we be moved or inspired by any of it? What’s the toll on our souls as a consequence of this kind of boundless AI-enabled creative freedom and democratization?
This Is Not A Call For Creative Elitism
To be clear, this is no anti-AI rant. Nor is it a call for creative elitism. The goal of making more tools available to more of us to flesh out our own creative ideas is a worthy one.
But that doesn’t mean that we simply trample over the creative works and IP of the artists who have come before us. Breakthrough technology doesn’t mean that we break through our IP laws. After all, we — society — made those laws for a reason. And they’ve worked pretty well for hundreds of years.
Let’s celebrate the toil, tenacity and true inspiration of human artists — a world that preserves human artistry and originality at the top of the creative food chain.
What do you think? Feel free to send me your feedback to peter@creativemedia.biz.
II. The Guest essAIy: When AI Erases Work, What Becomes Of Us?
By Michael Ashley (subscribe to his great The AI Philosopher Substack)
There are those who think all life is struggle. And meant to be that way. They see existence as one long test. The only way to pass the exam? Persevere in the face of endless challenges.
So, what happens when AI comes along and simplifies everything?
Take work.
Some leading experts think AI will soon do all our jobs, freeing people for lives of profound leisure. Universal Basic Income (UBI) issued by the government will give newly unemployed people the money the need.
I am against UBI as a societal panacea. Should UBI be disbursed because all the jobs are gone, the government would be able to give — and take away. It’s not hard to picture a scenario where your monthly stipend vanishes because you didn’t adhere to whatever user agreement stipulates your obligations.
Putting that concern aside, let’s imagine it’s 10 years from now and there really are no more jobs due to AI. In this hypothetical scenario, let’s also assume the public receives sufficient UBI payments for not just basic services like housing, healthcare, transportation, and more. Let’s go so far as to suggest advanced AI gives everyone a luxurious standard of living — including gourmet meals, lush living arrangements, and fascinating entertainment options galore.
What then? For one thing, people might turn AI into our new god.
If Universal Basic Income Were to Happen
It’s hard to fathom a reality where people never have to work again but let’s go there. What would life become once we remove all its struggles? At the outset, most of us would breathe deep relief. Freed from endless burdens, we could finally kick back on permanent vacation.
The first few days — even the first few weeks — would be pleasant. We could sleep in. We could visit all those friends and relatives we never get to see. We could get projects done. We could relax. We could party.
What about the long-term?
My prediction is things would go downhill. Fast. Ever met a child who has been given everything they ever wanted? They end up spoiled — and insufferable. On the other hand, people — no matter their age — who have overcome difficulties are typically well-adjusted. They’re often the nicest, most grounded individuals you will ever encounter. Often patient and understanding, they’ve experientially learned compassion for others.
If AI takes away such character-forming struggle, the results will not be pretty. They will be devastating. We will witness extreme decadence — leading to unimaginable cruelty. Think: the worst excesses of Caligula’s Rome — supercharged due to technological innovation. Bored and spoiled, people will pursue novel ways to entertain themselves. We can expect murder, rape, and assault cases to skyrocket as the now idle try to fill their endless days.
What about retirees? You might retort. They don’t go on hedonistic benders. At least most don’t.
That’s true. Then again, most people who retire do so after age 60. This hypothetical envisions people retiring in their physical prime. Also, while retirees do enjoy vast amounts of free time, they’re often constrained by living on a fixed budget. This stops them from going hog wild.
The simple truth is humans require struggle to produce decent characters and personalities. Should we remove hardship, we would not enjoy some idyllic Eden. For every self-actualized person who would takes up gardening, there will be 10 more who suddenly decide they want to bring Squid Game to life.
Recognizing pain as a necessary ingredient to life may frustrate you. It might even depress you. Maybe not if you shift your outlook. We live in a hedonistic culture emphasizing instant gratification. This is modernity. But life wasn’t always this way. Our ancestors weren’t obsessed with contrived fun like Disneyland and Escape Rooms in every city. Comfort wasn’t their highest good. They had other priorities: duty, purpose, family, God.
Hope Universal Basic Income Does Not Happen
As pundits breathlessly describe a coming Utopia free of work, be wary of such promises. An easy life isn’t more worthwhile than a hard one — nor more enjoyable. You need the good and the bad. Perhaps Tony Robbins said it best. “As humans, our biggest problem is that we don’t want problems. But problems are what makes us grow. Problems are what sculpt our souls.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Work With Peter & Creative Media …
And Follow Peter on BlueSky via this link.
You can also follow my longer daily posts on LinkedIn via this link.
III. AI Litigation Tracker: Updates on Key Generative AI/Media Cases (by McKool Smith)
Partner Avery Williams and the team at McKool Smith (named “Plaintiff IP Firm of the Year” by The National Law Journal) lay out the facts of — and latest critical developments in — the key generative AI/media litigation cases listed below. All those detailed updates can be accessed via this link to the “AI Litigation Tracker”.
(1) Kadrey v. Meta
(2) The New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI
(3) Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence
(4) In re OpenAI Litigation (class action)
(5) Dow Jones, et al. v. Perplexity AI
(6) UMG Recordings v. Suno
(7) UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs (d/b/a Udio)
(8) Getty Images v. Stability AI and Midjourney
(9) Universal Music Group, et al. v. Anthropic
(10) Sarah Anderson v. Stability AI
(11) Raw Story Media v. OpenAI
(12) The Center for Investigative Reporting v. OpenAI
(13) Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI
NOTE: Go to the “AI Litigation Tracker” tab at the top of “the brAIn” website for the full discussions and analyses of these and other key generative AI/media litigations. And reach out to me, Peter Csathy (peter@creativemedia.biz), if you would like to be connected to McKool Smith) to discuss these and other legal and litigation issues. I’ll make the introduction.
About My Firm Creative Media
My firm and I represent media companies and rights-holders for generative AI content strategy and licensing, with deep relationships and market insights and intelligence second to none. We know the key players inside AI tech and pride ourselves in reaching THE key decision-makers and influencers in record time to execute. Not just talk. We specialize in breakthrough business development and M&A and cost-effective legal services in the worlds of media, entertainment, AI and tech.
Reach out to me at peter@creativemedia.biz to explore working with us.
Send your feedback to me and my newsletter via peter@creativemedia.biz.