‘Make the AI companies accountable’

At a time when AI has eased the creative processes, taking them beyond the confines of core human competency, who owns a piece of creativity, communication or story telling? And what does it entail for the marketing and media eco-systems where the core of a narrative lies in its creative content?         

The question becomes even more critical considering this recent real scenario: A fake campaign went viral. The internet believed it was real. The brand stepped in to deny involvement.   

Indeed, a recent circulation of an AI-generated creative falsely attributed to Amul, ignited a debate across the advertising and marketing industry. While the content was not created by the brand, the association spread rapidly online, forcing the company to publicly distance itself from the viral creative. 

Quite understandably, the industry is suddenly forced to confront a larger question: in the age of AI-generated creativity, who owns the idea, and who takes responsibility when things go wrong? 

For Santosh Padhi (Paddy), Founder and Chief Creative Officer of Into Creative, the issue is not just about misinformation. It reflects a much larger legal and ethical vacuum around AI, ownership, and originality. 

“Some genuine brands are getting affected because the global copyright and legal bodies still haven’t been able to clearly define the rules,” Paddy says. “Every week, the do’s and don’ts are changing.” 

According to him, the problem begins with the way AI systems are trained and operated. He cites an example. “If I ask AI to create somebody’s image in the style of Raja Ravi Varma, the AI tool simply lifts from  the existing body of work by the original artist. Years ago, you would have needed permission, or you would have had to commission an artist. If someone copied it directly, they could be sued.” But AI, he says, has complicated that process by creating a layer between the original creator and the final output. 

“Right now, everyone blames the AI tool. But I feel the AI companies themselves should be held responsible because they know the source,” Paddy says. “If the system is clearly pulling references from an artist’s work, and at the same time charging users to generate that output, then there has to be some accountability.” 

For Paddy, this concern goes far beyond brands and advertising campaigns. It extends into the larger creative ecosystem, art, writing, visual identity, and personal style, although the former is driven by the latter. 

“A unique style comes after decades of hard work,” he says. “An artist spends 30 or 40 years building that identity, and suddenly AI can replicate or morph it within seconds.” 

He points out that the impact is often felt most strongly by creators who have already built recognition and influence. “The bigger you are, the more likely your work, your style, or your personality gets copied,” he notes. “People are borrowing that aura and blending it into their own personal or brand communication.” 

While many brands are currently experimenting with AI-generated content, Paddy believes the industry still needs stronger guardrails around originality and usage rights. 

“As a creative person, I feel there has to be a stopping point somewhere,” he says. “There is a lot of hard work behind every painting, every line, every creative expression, and that has to be valued.” 

The Amul incident may have appeared like just another viral moment on social media, but conversations like these reveal the deeper tension now emerging within advertising and marketing ecosystems. AI has made creativity more accessible than ever before, but it has also blurred the boundaries between inspiration, imitation, ownership, and misuse. 

And as the technology evolves faster than regulation, the industry is increasingly being pushed to answer a difficult question: when creativity can be replicated instantly, how do you still protect originality?