Dear Sean,
AI technologies promise to enhance speed and efficiency in various fields, yet many raise questions about ownership and the reuse of visual language, which can complicate issues of intellectual property and legal responsibility. As a studio principal and educator who teaches visual methods, I am wrestling with how to embrace these tools in a way that safeguards original design authorship and establishes appropriate professional standards for both practice and education. How can interior design studios leverage AI to enhance drafting and visualization efficiency without jeopardizing authorship, copyright, or accountability for their work?
Feeling Conflicted
Dear Feeling Conflicted,
A recent article in BOH did an excellent job of addressing these complexities, and I encourage you to engage thoughtfully with the discussions presented there. The core issue you need to confront is less about compromising authorship and more about understanding the underlying complexities.
Marketing and leadership expert Seth Godin recently shared a thought-provoking post on the rightful compensation for music creators, pointing out how the dilemmas we face today are rooted in decisions made over 80 years ago. The question of who deserves credit for various aspects of creation has always been fraught. Even if we could ascertain who should benefit from an AI algorithm’s output, determining the extent and justification of that compensation remains ambiguous. For instance, does a sofa define the design, or is it the relationship between the sofa and the pendant light in the kitchen? How do we identify what elements have been appropriated? This is not dissimilar to the contrast between Vanilla Ice’s appropriation of David Bowie and Queen’s bass line for “Ice Ice Baby,” a clear act of theft, versus Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s flow-based borrowing from Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” for “Blurred Lines.” It’s a complex issue, to say the least.
AI complicates these notions further, leading us into a murky territory of acknowledgment and the presumption of ownership regarding the components utilized. However, I maintain that nothing is entirely original; we all build upon the foundations laid by those who came before us.
Copyright law operates under the principle that ideas cannot be stolen, and if you independently conceive an idea, it isn’t considered theft. (Refer to Disney’s case regarding Zootopia—which it won, despite having previously received a similar treatment from the screenwriter Gary Goldman titled “Zootopia”—to see this principle in practice.) Therefore, it’s essential not to disregard AI as a pivotal instrument in your design business. At this juncture, being a Luddite is not only outdated; it could be seen as negligent. Your goal should be to utilize AI to enhance your creative output.
Where your work draws significantly upon existing elements that require acknowledgment (similar to Vanilla Ice) or where it rests upon more general inspirations (like Thicke and Williams), it is necessary to recognize these influences, but that should be the extent of it.
Your unique interpretation of the work must also be honored as the aspect that truly matters. A word of caution: those who choose to exploit AI to misrepresent their work are deserving of the consequences that will inevitably follow. Stealing is, indeed, stealing. Nevertheless, using existing influences as part of a new creation is a fundamentally human pursuit. If you include an oversized leaning mirror in your design, I highly doubt you will credit Vicente Wolf for introducing it over 50 years ago—nor should you. Instead, you should integrate this technique into your own narrative. AI simply amplifies this concept exponentially.
Just as the most advanced CGI cannot guarantee a blockbuster film, the same applies to AI and the tools it provides for both designers and clients. The narrative is what truly counts.
While I don’t wish to overlook the pressing issues surrounding AI, copyright, and payment rights, I urge you to concentrate on what AI means for all designers. Primarily, it signifies two things: First, simply being average in a world where AI excels is an untenable position. AI will continuously refine its ability to aggregate and integrate ideas. Do you want to mix a Bunny Williams master bathroom with a Barry Dixon master bedroom? AI can achieve that in seconds, more effectively than you could. Secondly, because of this first reality, the standards will be raised for all designers. If clients are taught to ask the right questions—and they certainly will be—they will obtain “pretty” and “stylish” in abundance. AI will compel every designer to discover their unique path to beauty, and using AI will be essential to achieve that.
To illustrate this point, consider why you would hire a photographer to capture your interiors. While some have connections with media outlets, that’s not their primary value. They create what you cannot, even if your tools are as competent as theirs. Do not fall into the trap of ignoring these tools or mistakenly believing that the tool itself is what matters. Ultimately, it is the individual wielding it that makes the difference.
It is possible to reconcile both views: acknowledging the contributions of those who came before you if your work closely resembles theirs is essential; however, in 99.9 percent of true design, what exists is merely a foundation that facilitates a greater depth of authenticity and expression—one that we have yet to fully experience. The digital image reached this point long ago and continues to evolve. Now, it’s your turn.
____________
Sean Low is a renowned business coach for interior designers. His clients include Nate Berkus, Sawyer Berson, Vicente Wolf, Barry Dixon, Kevin Isbell, and McGrath II. Sean holds a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and is the founder of The Business of Being Creative, providing consulting services to design firms. In his Business Advice column for BOH, he addresses the most urgent questions from designers. Have a dilemma? Send us an email—we’ll keep your identity anonymous.
