Who Gets Credit? AI, Creativity, and the Fight for Authentic Authorship.

By J.Alexander Martin

In the early days of FUBU, our name was our mission: “For Us, By Us.” It was a declaration of ownership, a stamp of authenticity in a world that wasn’t always ready to give credit where it was due. We built an empire on the simple, powerful idea that the creator’s vision, voice, and hands-on work are what give a piece of culture its soul.

Today, a new technological wave is cresting, and that same fundamental question of ownership is back, bigger and more complex than ever. Generative artificial intelligence is in every creative studio. It’s in the hands of fashion designers sketching the next iconic sneaker, musicians composing a beat that could define a summer, and visual artists building worlds we’ve only dreamed of. AI is a powerful collaborator, a tireless assistant, an incredible “co-pilot” that can accelerate the journey from idea to reality.

But with this new partner comes a critical question that every creative needs to be asking: When the work is done, who gets the credit? And more importantly, who owns the final product?

The answer isn’t simple, and it’s splitting into two very different paths. One path is about identification—simply labeling content to say, “An AI was here.” The other, more vital path is about authorship—creating an unbreakable record that proves, “I, the human artist, made this.” For the creative community, understanding the difference isn’t just a technicality; it’s the frontline in the fight for our future.

The “AI Was Here” Tag: A Good Start, But Not the Whole Story

Right now, the most visible response to the flood of AI content comes from tech giants like Google. Their approach is to watermark AI-generated media with invisible signals, like SynthID, or small, visible logos. The goal is public transparency—to help people distinguish between what’s real and what’s synthetic. Think of it as a way to fight fake news and deepfakes.

This is a necessary step for society. But for a creator, it’s like putting a tag on a jacket that says, “Made with a sewing machine.” It tells you about the tool, but it says nothing about the designer.

That label doesn’t tell you about the late nights spent refining the silhouette, the choice of fabric, the vision that brought it to life. It doesn’t help you when it’s time to register a copyright, collect a royalty, or build a legacy. An “AI-generated” tag solves a platform’s problem with misinformation, but it does nothing to solve the creator’s problem of ownership.

The Copyright Office Is Clear: A Prompt Is Not a Masterpiece

This isn’t just a philosophical debate. The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has drawn a clear line in the sand. To get copyright protection, a work must be the product of “human authorship”.

They’ve stated that simply writing a prompt and letting an AI run with it is not enough to claim you are the author. The AI, in that case, is making the creative choices.