Creative Agency and Ethical Boundaries: A Documentary Analysis of AI in the Creative Industries

Laura Zengo

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e290412

Authors

Laura Zengo Stamford University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3627-7355

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e290412

Keywords:

Creativity, Artificial Intelligence, Impact

Abstract

Background and Aims: This study aims to provide an overview of the creative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) within creative industries. Our scope encompasses the early demonstrations of AI's creative capabilities in the 90s, when prevailing thought maintained that AI could only explore creativity passively, rather than actively contributing to it. By "active contribution," we refer to an AI's capacity to generate its creative output. The technological evolution has led to an era where AI-generated multimedia creation has become both viable and valuable, exemplified by Runway’s Gen-4, which allows users to edit short video sequences through text and image inputs alone. This technology offers valuable opportunities for creative professionals but also raises ethical and legal concerns, particularly regarding bias and its potential to limit human creativity, thus reinforcing the importance of preserving human agency in the creative process.

Methodology: This research employs a documentary and interdisciplinary methodology, integrating literature, human sciences, computer science, and evolving definitions of creativity to explore the creative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) within the creative industries. While acknowledging limitations due to reliance on publicly available materials, this approach provides a robust foundation for understanding generative AI's creative capabilities, considering factors such as data diversity, ethical oversight, and human collaboration.

Results: This documentary and interdisciplinary research observe and examine GAI (Generative artificial intelligence) creative potential in the arts. Even though this research is non-exhaustive due to the selection of research and academic papers, it emphasized significant details on bias, authorship, and ethics, advocating for human oversight and governance. While AI can enhance creativity, it cannot replicate the cultural and emotional essence of human artistry.

Conclusion: This research underscores the need to rethink creativity in the era of generative artificial intelligence, as traditional definitions overlook diverse and evolving forms of expression. Despite their coherence, AI models lack emotion, intuition, and genuine creative agency.

References

Abid, A., Farooqi, M., & Zou, J. (2021). Persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462624

Adajian, T. (2024). The definition of art. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/art-definition/

Ammanabrolu, P., Cheung, W., Broniec, W., & Riedl, M. O. (2020). How to avoid being eaten by a grue: Structured exploration strategies for textual worlds. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07409

Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Bellini, E., Ausserhofer, J., Posner, M., & Pratesi, C. (2024). ChatGPT and academic writing: A game changer or a risky shortcut? Journal of Academic Ethics. Advance online publication.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Bennett, C. L., Shelby, R., Rostamzadeh, N., & Kane, S. K. (2024). Painting with cameras and drawing with text: AI use in accessible creativity. Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '24), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663548.3675644

Boden, M. A. (2018). Artificial intelligence: A very short introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 29).

https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/hash/a486cd07e4ac3d270571622f4f316ec5-Abstract.html

Chirico, A., Bermúdez I Badía, S., Quintero, L. V., Cameirão, M. S., Triberti, S., Cipresso, P., & Gaggioli, A. (2018). Toward emotionally adaptive virtual reality for mental health applications. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 23(5), 1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2018.2878846

Colton, S., Halskov, J., Ventura, D., Gouldstone, I., Cook, M., & Pérez-Ferrer, B. (2012). Computational creativity: The final frontier? In ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 21–26). IOS Press. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/22549

Cope, B. (2009). The future of the book in the digital age. In B. Cope & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the book in the digital age (pp. 1–26). Chandos Publishing.

Edwards, L. (2023). Regulating ChatGPT and other large generative AI models. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5, 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00542-x

European Union. (2024). EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu

Gangal, V., Hosseini, A., Jansen, P., & Riedl, M. (2021). Challenges in creative generative models for coherent story generation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG 2021) (pp. 1–10). https://aclanthology.org/2021.inlg-1.1/

Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 27, pp. 2672–2680). Curran Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.5555/2969033.2969125

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

Haruna, H., Huang, Y., Chu, S. K. W., & et al. (2023). A systematic literature review of generative artificial intelligence applications in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100133.

Heipke, C., & Rottensteiner, F. (2020). Deep learning for geometric and semantic tasks in photogrammetry and remote sensing. Geo-spatial Information Science, 23(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2020.1718003

Heipke, C., & Rottensteiner, F. (2020). Deep learning in photogrammetry and remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 167, 1–2.

Jarvis, P., & John, F. (2019). The theory and practice of teaching. Routledge.

Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2013). Auto-encoding variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114

Legros, C., & Balagué, N. (2023). Creative writing and artificial intelligence: Exploring new possibilities. AI & Society, 38, 409–420.

Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Pantheon Books.

Runco, M. A. (2023). Creativity and AI: An uneasy alliance. Creativity Research Journal, 35(1), 1–9.

See, A., Liu, P. J., & Manning, C. D. (2019). Massively multilingual neural machine translation in the wild: Findings and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11240. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11240

Tambwekar, P., Dhuliawala, M., Mehta, A., Riedl, M. O., & Harrison, B. (2019). Controllable neural story plot generation via reward shaping. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2019) (pp. 5982–5988). https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2019/0769.pdf

Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2023).

The New York Times Company v. OpenAI, No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Torrance, E. P. (1969). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press.

UNCTAD. (2024). Digital economy report 2024: AI and development. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctad.org

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30).

Wired. (2023). The AI lawsuits are coming. WIRED Magazine. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-lawsuits-chatgpt-openai/

Yao, M. (2023). Understanding the limits of deep learning. TopBots.