Creative Industries, Creators & Creatives
from the who-is-creative? dept
This series of posts explores how we can rethink the intersection of AI, creativity, and policy. From examining outdated regulatory metaphors to questioning copyright norms and highlighting the risks of stifling innovation, each post addresses a different piece of the AI puzzle. Together, they advocate for a more balanced, forward-thinking approach that acknowledges the potential of technological evolution while safeguarding the rights of creators and ensuring AI’s development serves the broader interests of society. You can read the first post and second post in the series.
In policy circles, creative industries have become the loudest voices in copyright debates. The problem? They are often mistaken for representing creativity itself, or even protecting individual creators and culture. But let’s get one thing straight: creativity is very different from the creative industries—as different as music is from the music business. Think The Beatles vs. Bad Boy Records: not the same vibe!
The creative industries are an economic concept, an invention of the British government in 1997 under Tony Blair. This was when the Creative Industries Task Force was born, bringing together sectors like advertising, design, fashion, film, music, and software—all under one umbrella. We’re talking about a vast range, from opera and ballet to architecture, advertising and video games. This is way beyond what most people think of as “culture.” And let’s not even talk about the hodgepodge concept of IPR-intensive industries waved by the Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO), which covers pretty much any company that filed patents or geographical indications, from McDonalds to the wonderful vendors of Prosciutto di Parma.
Who’s Who in the Creative Industry?
When talking about the creative industries, it’s important to differentiate between the players involved. There are rightsholders, who may be those producing and distributing content, or sometimes simply financial investors—think Scooter Braun vs. Taylor Swift. Then there are the creators themselves, who often don’t even own the rights to what they’ve created. And of course, there are all the other people who work in the industry—from “creatives” to those in support roles, just like in any other industry.
This complexity becomes crucial when considering AI. As we’ve seen with the Hollywood writers’ strike, the creative industry is already embracing AI, viewing it as either a new creative tool or a cost-cutting measure that could replace human jobs. That’s the “industries” part of the label—a business-driven focus that doesn’t necessarily align with the interests of individual creators or the broader value of creativity.
AI, Authenticity, and the Human Touch
The real challenges posed by AI aren’t limited to copyright or creative rights—they’re about the future of work and how we value human contribution in an automated world. To understand the human creator’s role, let’s take a look at the evolution of electronic dance music (EDM). As Douglas Rushkoff describes, EDM started with anonymous techno raves, with the DJ barely visible or hidden entirely. Over time, the DJ became the centerpiece, part of the spectacle—because humans relate to humans. This dynamic isn’t going to change with AI.
Or, as Dan Graham, owner of Gothic Storm Limited and Founder of the Library of the Human Soul, puts it: “We’re suckers for a backstory and authenticity. We hate knock-offs, even if they’re perfect. Fake Rolexes, forged artwork—it doesn’t matter how good it is, the real thing is always worth more, because we care.” AI might make flawless imitations, but the value of human creativity, authenticity, and connection remains unmatched.
So, while AI will certainly change the creative industries, it won’t replace the core of creativity—the human spirit, storytelling, and the authenticity we all crave as fans.
Caroline De Cock is a communications and policy expert, author, and entrepreneur. She serves as Managing Director of N-square Consulting and Square-up Agency, and Head of Research at Information Labs. Caroline specializes in digital rights, policy advocacy, and strategic innovation, driven by her commitment to fostering global connectivity and positive change.
Filed Under: ai, creative industries, creativity and ai, creators, culture, human touch
Comments on “Creative Industries, Creators & Creatives”
Am I the only one noticing the inherent tension between constantly writing articles pushing regurgitation engines, and claiming “actually people won’t like the output of them so it it’s not a problem”?
This has some real “How do you do, fellow kids?” energy to it. The articles from this lobbying group are embarrassing for Techdirt to keep publishing.
Your regular reminder that the blurb at the bottom is a euphemism for lobbying, and you should evaluate the argument accordingly.
It’s nice to see the article differentiate between the actual creators, the industry, and rightsholders (although it doesn’t really talk much about how industry interacts with the creatives, albeit lopsidedly). But there are three obvious problems with this argument:
One, there are plenty of examples of creative works where the artist isn’t centered (or even mentioned) in the works. There are plenty of existing examples that go the other way from EDM. Not all creative work is personalized.
Two, even with something like books, there is very little actual connection to an author beyond a name (see for instance, Richard Bachman’s career vs Stephen King. Similarly, what do I know about J.K. Rowling besides that she’s a transphobe? Nothing. Never mind the many many authors who never become personally recognizable). And to be brutally honest, even people like Taylor Swift are more of a brand/image than the actual person to begin with. When you buy into that fandom, you’re buying into an idea- many artists never live up to their stage persona.
But three, perhaps most importantly, it’s not even just creative works- entire fake “authentic” influencer personas are already being spun up, successfully. This isn’t a hypothetical. There are literally already people making money off the fact that you can fake that supposed desire for authenticity, and it’s only going to get better. This arguably isn’t even new, ghostwriters have existed since forever.
There’s a massive market for these things, both when they can be passed off as authentic and when they can’t. There are literally fakes that have hung in museums that people couldn’t tell the difference. (Although these are ironic examples to begin with, given that they exist more for status symbols than any authentic connection to the creator. Real Rolex’s in particular are mass produced)
Re:
Thanks for always coming in to call out Caroline DeCockbite for her paid posts on Techdirt. Im super disappointed they are still out here shilling for big tech (there are no indie AI developers) out of one side of their mouth, while about wanting the internet to be for everyone out of the other. You can’t have AI and compensated creativity, in my opinion. This is more Business Idiots selling Business Idiot Ideas to other Business Idiots so even more Business Idiots will think they are smart and competent (thanks ed zitron). Ive spent decades teaching myself how to draw. I dont respect them.
Re: Re:
What does that even mean? You think every single AI company has a budget of 500 million dollars and thousands of employees?
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps it means that the popular view of an indie developer who’s nothing more than a hobbyist who came up with something to fill a need and implemented it does not exist, even indie developers tend to be groups (albeit small ones) who are just as much in it for the money as the big players. Why did you never stop to consider that reality?
Re: Re: Re:
“Big tech” also has no clear meaning. Everyone using that term seems to ignore various hugely important technologies, such as agriculture, the printing press, governments, automobiles, finance…
Re:
A co-worker of mine took a business trip to China, and was very excited about finding a fake Rolex watch. I’m not sure why, but certainly not because it could be passed off as an actual Rolex watch: they spent the next week showing everyone their “fake Rolex”. (And guess what I paid for this fake Rolex!)
The big media players will be fine, they will get legal protections and deals with Ai companies while individual creators will be faced with either not showing their work to the world or having it looted by a DDOS attack worth of scrapers to be use as feedstock for the machine that makes it near impossible for them to find work.
Also stop posting pieces by AI lobbyists, trust is hard to earn but easily lost.
Exploring the Line Between Creators and Creative Industries
This is such a refreshing and nuanced breakdown. The conflation of “creative industry” with “creators” has always felt off, especially as someone who works in digital content but often feels disconnected from the more commercial “creative industry” narratives.
What stood out to me most is how the article distinguishes between individuals who create as an act of expression or identity (like independent writers, podcasters, open-source developers), and the broader machinery of the creative economy, which tends to center on ownership, IP, and commercial scalability.
It raises a big question: should policy favor individual creators’ freedom and sustainability—or continue reinforcing the power of established creative institutions? It feels like we’re at a critical juncture with AI-generated content and decentralized platforms, where that distinction will matter more than ever.
At [BM Infotrade] (https://bminfotrade.com/contact), we’ve been exploring how AI tools are reshaping digital content workflows for small businesses—often blurring the lines between creator and creative tech. Would love to hear how others see this tension playing out, especially in global or non-Western creative economies.
Digital Crestor identification
Facebook or the Congress needs to pass regulations that require identifying date for which digital creators are paid and by whom! The proliferation of these digital influencers has produced unacceptable outcomes on society!