The need to apply restrictions to digital publishing to safeguard literary and artistic creation in the age of AI
February, 25; 2026. By Arscodex
These days, a specific debate is emerging concerning AI and the ease with which it can be used to create works of art. This publication advocates for restrictions on the tools used to safeguard copyrighted works and existing image rights that have economic value and public interest.
Generally, many perspectives can be brought up to address this issue, so we will focus on several aspects, though these are certainly not all the existing ones.
In short, two main perspectives can be considered: the technological viewpoint, which prioritizes the free use of these tools, typical, for example, of online content aggregators like YouTube; and the artistic viewpoint, which strives to safeguard literary and artistic creation itself, as is the perspective of this publication.
And here we come to offer some perspectives on the matter, and to do so, we'll give some examples, such as asking an AI to create an image of, for instance, a soccer player whose image rights are active and have monetary value: Karim Benzema. The image creation tool could invoke the American "fair use" doctrine to allow anyone to request an AI to create an image of this soccer player, but it turns out that little "fair use"—that is, personal or educational use—will be made of that content; therefore, from the outset, at the moment of creation, restrictions should be applied, and AIs should take care not to generate any type of image that could infringe on a person's active image rights, as in this case, or the copyright of an artistic work.
That's at the creation stage. Restrictions and limitations should be applied at the moment, as we said, of the automatic generation of these images. In other words, depending on the topic, AI might not produce any output on certain issues (for example, creating an image of Karim Benzema), basically because it's not in anyone's interest to use that potential creation unless it's to infringe on that person's image rights.
Then there's the moment of publication. That is, when the image has already been created but hasn't been made public. Well, restrictions must also be applied at this stage, and in this case, there should be a combination of both automated processes and manual authorizations.
Traditionally, when media outlets published an article written by a journalist, they were jointly responsible for the published content, along with the writer. In modern systems of aggregating user-generated content—that is, in a context where anyone can easily upload whatever they want to the internet, such as a platform like YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram—it's necessary to technically reduce the platform's responsibility somewhat because, of course, anyone can upload whatever they want, as we've said. As long as the platform has fully identified the content uploader with their personal data, it can disclaim responsibility; otherwise, it is considered co-responsible for the content published.
However, the purpose of this article is not to determine who is responsible in this case. The objective is to request that the platform apply similar restrictions to publication and monitor all uploaded content, both with automatic filters and manually, to prevent potential copyright and image rights infringements.
We should mention that this request to restrict content publication as much as possible stems from this publication's commitment to copyright and all current legislation that protects it, in contrast to the technological perspective that treats copyright as unimportant and emphasizes the technical aspects, when we believe the opposite is true.
A clear example is the situation of the company founded by Walt Disney, which is in a somewhat equidistant position and is not taking a decisive stance on this issue, to its own detriment, we believe. Currently, the company's stock value is far from its all-time high (it's worth about half of its peak value on the stock market), mainly because it has been unable to protect its interests against technology, simply emphasizing literary and artistic creation, as it has been doing, at the expense of the technological perspective.
The position of this publication and its associated audiovisual production company is clear: severe restrictions must be applied to both the creation and publication of digital content, automatically and manually. If a platform cannot, for example, guarantee that it will take all necessary precautions, we simply ask that it not publish anything at all related to creations associated with this medium, as YouTube is already doing in our case (that is, that there be no significant content of ours on that platform).
In short, to safeguard both existing copyrights and image rights, this publication suggests that severe limitations be applied to both the creation and publication of digital content, automatically and manually.
Generally, many perspectives can be brought up to address this issue, so we will focus on several aspects, though these are certainly not all the existing ones.
In short, two main perspectives can be considered: the technological viewpoint, which prioritizes the free use of these tools, typical, for example, of online content aggregators like YouTube; and the artistic viewpoint, which strives to safeguard literary and artistic creation itself, as is the perspective of this publication.
And here we come to offer some perspectives on the matter, and to do so, we'll give some examples, such as asking an AI to create an image of, for instance, a soccer player whose image rights are active and have monetary value: Karim Benzema. The image creation tool could invoke the American "fair use" doctrine to allow anyone to request an AI to create an image of this soccer player, but it turns out that little "fair use"—that is, personal or educational use—will be made of that content; therefore, from the outset, at the moment of creation, restrictions should be applied, and AIs should take care not to generate any type of image that could infringe on a person's active image rights, as in this case, or the copyright of an artistic work.
That's at the creation stage. Restrictions and limitations should be applied at the moment, as we said, of the automatic generation of these images. In other words, depending on the topic, AI might not produce any output on certain issues (for example, creating an image of Karim Benzema), basically because it's not in anyone's interest to use that potential creation unless it's to infringe on that person's image rights.
Then there's the moment of publication. That is, when the image has already been created but hasn't been made public. Well, restrictions must also be applied at this stage, and in this case, there should be a combination of both automated processes and manual authorizations.
Traditionally, when media outlets published an article written by a journalist, they were jointly responsible for the published content, along with the writer. In modern systems of aggregating user-generated content—that is, in a context where anyone can easily upload whatever they want to the internet, such as a platform like YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram—it's necessary to technically reduce the platform's responsibility somewhat because, of course, anyone can upload whatever they want, as we've said. As long as the platform has fully identified the content uploader with their personal data, it can disclaim responsibility; otherwise, it is considered co-responsible for the content published.
However, the purpose of this article is not to determine who is responsible in this case. The objective is to request that the platform apply similar restrictions to publication and monitor all uploaded content, both with automatic filters and manually, to prevent potential copyright and image rights infringements.
We should mention that this request to restrict content publication as much as possible stems from this publication's commitment to copyright and all current legislation that protects it, in contrast to the technological perspective that treats copyright as unimportant and emphasizes the technical aspects, when we believe the opposite is true.
A clear example is the situation of the company founded by Walt Disney, which is in a somewhat equidistant position and is not taking a decisive stance on this issue, to its own detriment, we believe. Currently, the company's stock value is far from its all-time high (it's worth about half of its peak value on the stock market), mainly because it has been unable to protect its interests against technology, simply emphasizing literary and artistic creation, as it has been doing, at the expense of the technological perspective.
The position of this publication and its associated audiovisual production company is clear: severe restrictions must be applied to both the creation and publication of digital content, automatically and manually. If a platform cannot, for example, guarantee that it will take all necessary precautions, we simply ask that it not publish anything at all related to creations associated with this medium, as YouTube is already doing in our case (that is, that there be no significant content of ours on that platform).
In short, to safeguard both existing copyrights and image rights, this publication suggests that severe limitations be applied to both the creation and publication of digital content, automatically and manually.
Featured links in People
Related newsSome brave directors have rushed to produce horror films based on classic Walt Disney films, once their copyrights have expired - October, 22; 2025
The importance of music in cinema - October, 03; 2025
Alien: Earth, the new serial installment of the most terrifying franchise - August, 12; 2025