Disclaimer: I’m an independent artist writing this. I'm not a lawyer, so this blog does not contain any professional legal advice.

Is it "Safe" for Artists to Use AI?

Unfortunately, Adobe has added generative artificial intelligence (AI) to its software. I’m not the only artist feeling betrayed and grieving the loss of the original Adobe. Many designers are NOT OK with AI tools and are boycotting AI for artistic use.

Adobe marketed its generative fill update as safe for artists because it uses royalty-free images, but regardless of that claim, generative AI tools may compromise copyright. 

Is it "safe" for artists to use AI just a little bit? The answer to this depends on how comfortable the creator is with losing their copyright "just a little bit" or completely depending on the extent of non-human adjustments made to their work. 

Many designers are tempted to use AI to tweak a few things on their own original work using generative tools built into Adobe. Using AI alongside human-made work is a creation process that is not 100% human. At the time of writing this, the way copyright law works, human "authorship" is required to create copyrighted artwork. This means that even if AI can generate a design solely through the use of prompts, that AI-made work can't be copyrighted. AI-users also have to be careful that the prompts used aren't essentially telling the AI to copy someone else's copyrighted work because that could lead to legal consequences due to possible copyright infringement. 

Can AI replace artists?

AI may be able to generate art but the art generated is not protected by copyright. Big brands and retailers like TJ Maxx and Hobby Lobby still prefer to pay real independent artists for designs that are legally protected. Additionally, retailers tested selling AI-generated art and guess what? The AI-designed art didn't sell nearly as well as art created by real artists. 

As it turns out, art made by a humans still holds a much stronger market value than art made by AI. The reasons for this extend beyond just better copyright protection. Art made by humans looks less artificial, connects better to real humans, and typically does not have technical errors that AI art is known to frequently generate.

But what about all the artists who were let go by Disney? Hasn't AI replaced them? 

This brings up another issue that has impacted artists for years and it pre-dates AI being used artistically. The ownership of copyrighted artwork determines who can profit off the art. Many artists lose the copyright of their work in exchange for employment. The terms of this exchange are written into many standard employment agreements, stating that ownership of the copyrighted art transfers to the employer while the artist works for their employer. The employer then goes on to profit off the older work sometimes longer than the employer needs to keep the artist on their payroll. In stark contrast, working artists who are self-employed typically keep the ownership of their copyrighted art, meaning they are able to continue monetizing their older work.

AI has replaced some hourly artistic work and some employment opportunities for artists, but it has not stopped many independent artists who retained their copyright from profiting off their own work. Independent artists continue to be able to earn sales, commissions, and royalties, so long as consumers keep choosing to buy real human-made work over AI-generated work.

1. People have brains and souls. We do not need AI for everything.
2. “One art experience per month can extend your life by ten years.” - Your Brain on Art. 
3. Many artists who create copyright protected art can legally dispute dupes.
4. Blending original art with AI tools to tweak a few things can cause copyright erosion, either partial or total loss depending on what was altered.
5. Research by Magsamen and Ross shows “engaging in, or even observing, art for as little as forty five minutes reduces the stress hormone cortisol, no matter your skill level…” - Your Brain on Art.

Original human-designed artwork is more valuable than AI slop not just because it has superior copyright protection and because customers tend to prefer buying real art rather than fake AI art, but because creating and engaging with art reduces stress, connects us, increases human intelligence, extends our lives and makes us happier human beings.

Works Cited:

“U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI generated material.” Reuters, 2 Mar. 2026, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/.

“U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI generated material.” CNBC, 2 Mar. 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/02/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-for-ai-generated-material.html.

Bomboy, Scott. “Supreme Court denies artificial intelligence authorship claim for artwork copyright.” National Constitution Center, 11 Mar. 2026, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-denies-artificial-intelligence-authorship-claim-for-artwork-copyright.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. “US Supreme Court Declines to Consider Whether AI Alone Can Create Copyrighted Works.” LawFlash, 6 Mar. 2026, https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/us-supreme-court-declines-to-consider-whether-ai-alone-can-create-copyrighted-works.

Your Brain on Art. “One art experience per month can extend your life by ten years.” (Quoted passages attributed to Magsamen and Ross.)