Will the CREATOR Act protect artists from AI theft?

The newly proposed CREATOR bill sets out to protect an artist's style from being copied for commercial gain. In the age of generative AI, it marks a significant step in addressing the challenges artists face today. So what does it do and how would it work if passed?

At the beginning of last year, selfies and stills of friends, family, pets, you name it, started circulating on social media in the style of Studio Ghibli. ‘This is no less than a slap in the face of artists who spend hours imagining and creating something like this,’ wrote one Reddit user of the ‘Ghiblification’. While arguments spread like wildfire on the internet on the ethics of it all, the cultural phenomenon flagged an important gap: while copyright exists to protect a creative’s work, no law currently exists to protect a creative’s unique style.

In the age of generative AI, where someone can frictionlessly input ‘make an image in the style of [insert any given artist]’ to uncanny results within mere seconds, this distinction is increasingly leaving creatives at massive risk. Especially when these tools are leveraged for commercial gain without an artist’s consent.

'Spirited Away' (2001) still

It’s a welcome suggestion, then, that lawmakers in the US are proposing the CREATOR bill (Creative Rights Ensuring Artists’ Technique and Originality Are Reserved) to address this current gap. If passed, this legislation would create a new federal right protecting visual artists from the unauthorized commercial use of AI-generated works impersonating their ‘unique and creative artistic styles’. In simple terms, their style would be protected from imitation for profit. These “protected and licensable” style rights would last “for the duration of visual artists' lifetime PLUS 10 years after death,” explains Irina Tarsis, attorney and founder of the Center for Art Law.

“Artists, illustrators, and designers in every district are watching their livelihoods be undercut by AI tools deliberately impersonating them, but right now, the law has no answer for it,” said Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne on the motivations behind the bill. “I look forward to continuing to push for legislation that puts people over Big Tech.” Irina similarly notes that “the proposed law is an artist-friendly initiative”. The current lack of law “allows for opportunists to undermine the original creators. We as a society should protect artists who spend their lives reflecting and feeling what we are living,” she continues.

While the law hasn't been passed yet, creatives can breathe a sigh of relief to see that this issue is finally being confronted head-on by lawmakers, with artists front and centre. Big fish like Adobe have even put forth their support of the bill with a spokesperson explaining: “With AI, anyone can use a single prompt to generate mass imitations of an artist’s signature style and flood the marketplace with those outputs — at zero cost, in seconds, and without consent or compensation. That's the reality and threat that is facing visual artists today. And until now, the law has had no answer for it.”

So how would the CREATOR Act work in practice, and is it foolproof? For Irina, one uncertainty is “How the style of an artist would be policed”. “The Bill does not explain or define how someone's style can be identified or copied,” she notes. This will likely mean that famous artists currently stand to gain more from the act, with their distinct, recognisable styles. For lesser-known artists, proving their style will likely be trickier.

'Inside' (2023) still

Then, there’s the fact that drawing the line between influence and imitation is tricky. “In some cases, Ghibli being the example, it's very easy to say, well, this is clearly Studio Ghibli style, but it's not always that black and white,” says journalist Rob Alderson, whose Substack Undo explores AI and creativity.

But rather than focusing too much on style (a topic philosophers will delight in), proving imitation “should be based on intent of the defendant,” says Irina. In other words, proving that someone knowingly ripped off someone else’s style and made money off it. The focus here, and of the bill more broadly, is to go after bad actors who knowingly steal artists' work.

“I hope what it will do is sort of provide protection and reassurance,” notes Rob. “It will create a culture of confidence for people that, okay, I can develop my style, and other people aren't just gonna be able to go and run off and use it.”

What do you think? Will the CREATOR bill make a difference for junior creatives who are perhaps still developing their style? If you’ve got strong feelings about this, or want to share how AI is impacting you personally head over to our Instagram page to share your thoughts.

In the meantime, here’s what creatives in the UK can do to copyright their work.