Why AI Is Not “Stealing” Creativity: A Historical and Educational Perspective on Homage, Learning, and Innovation
I got an AI to research and write a refutation of the idea that AI is theft. This is Perplexity's argument in its own words.
The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked heated debates about creativity and originality. Critics often accuse AI of “stealing” creative work by training on vast datasets of existing art, writing, music, and design. However, this perspective overlooks a rich tradition in human creativity that embraces borrowing, reinterpretation, and homage as essential to artistic growth and innovation. Far from being theft, AI’s creative process aligns closely with how humans have learned and created for centuries.
Creative Learning Through Homage: A Time-Honored Pedagogical Practice
One of the strongest counterarguments to the “AI steals” claim lies in the educational practice of homage. Across disciplines, students are routinely asked to study, analyze, and recreate works by masters as a foundational step in developing their own voice. For instance, at Northampton Community College, students undertake Art History Homage projects where they produce original works inspired by artists like Meret Oppenheim, Marcel Duchamp, and Frida Kahlo. These assignments require deep engagement with the original artist’s style and themes, resulting in new creations that honor and reinterpret the source material. A student’s homage to Oppenheim might involve recreating her surrealist Object using a hairbrush, demonstrating creative adaptation rather than mere copying.
This approach is not unique to visual arts. In literature, students write pastiches or rewrite classic soliloquies, while in music, jazz musicians learn by improvising on established standards. These exercises are celebrated as vital for skill development and creative maturity, not condemned as theft.
Historical and Cultural Precedents of Creative Borrowing
Human creativity has always been iterative and collaborative, building on prior knowledge and cultural artifacts. Renaissance apprentices copied masters’ works before innovating, as seen in Raphael’s The School of Athens, itself an homage to classical thinkers. Picasso’s cubism drew heavily on African masks, openly borrowing and transforming existing art forms. Jazz legends like John Coltrane reinterpreted standards, pushing genres forward through homage and variation.
Even the master-apprentice dynamics in Japanese ukiyo-e printmaking show students replicating Hokusai’s style before developing their own. These examples illustrate that creativity is rarely about isolated originality but often about dialogue with predecessors.
Legal and Ethical Frameworks Support Transformative Use
Copyright law distinguishes between plagiarism and transformative use. Educational fair use provisions allow students to copy and reinterpret copyrighted works for study and creation, paralleling AI’s training on diverse datasets. The landmark case Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith affirmed that adding new meaning or context can qualify as fair use, legitimizing homage and reinterpretation.
Moreover, copyright protects specific expressions, not artistic styles or ideas. AI models learn compositional patterns rather than replicating exact works, much like human artists learn styles and techniques without copying verbatim.
AI as a Tool Empowering Creativity, Not Replacing It
Generative AI identifies patterns from existing data to produce unique content that mimics human creativity, revolutionizing creative fields by breaking down barriers to entry and enabling new forms of collaboration. For example, AI-powered music tools analyze existing songs to inspire musicians to experiment with genres and techniques, expanding creative horizons. Studies show AI tools provide designers with new perspectives, automate repetitive tasks, and accelerate ideation, enhancing productivity and innovation while complementing human judgment rather than replacing it.
Educational institutions are already integrating AI tools to support learning. Research indicates that students find AI helpful for developing creativity by encouraging independent thinking and creating opportunities for exploration. AI’s role is increasingly seen as augmenting human creativity, enabling a collaborative creative process where machines and humans co-create.
Parallels Between AI and Human Creative Apprenticeship
The process AI uses to generate new works is fundamentally similar to human creative apprenticeship and homage. Both involve learning from existing inputs to produce new outputs. Just as students copy and reinterpret masterworks to develop their skills and voice, AI synthesizes patterns from data to create novel content.
This parallel challenges the hypocrisy in condemning AI for “stealing” while celebrating human artists who openly admit to borrowing. Picasso famously said, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Shakespeare adapted Plutarch’s histories; Led Zeppelin reworked blues traditions. The key is transformation and innovation, not mere replication.
Personal Connections in Making Homage
Creating homage is a deeply personal act that fosters emotional resonance, cultural dialogue, and creative growth. It connects creators to artistic traditions, communities, and their own identities. This layered relationship transforms admiration into meaningful innovation—a process mirrored in how AI tools augment human creativity.
Conclusion: Reframing the Narrative Around AI and Creativity
The accusation that AI “steals” creative work ignores centuries of artistic tradition where learning through homage, borrowing, and reinterpretation is foundational. Educational practices explicitly encourage studying and reworking existing works as a path to innovation. Legal frameworks protect transformative use, and cultural history celebrates creative borrowing as essential to progress.
AI’s creative process is an extension of these human practices, democratizing creativity and opening new possibilities rather than undermining originality. Rather than fearing AI as a thief, we should embrace it as a tool that continues the age-old human journey of learning, homage, and invention.
Selected References
• Chaeeun Boo et al., A Collaborative Creative Process in the Age of AI, ScholarSpace, 2024
• Budi Sulistiyo Nugroho et al., Application of AI in the Creative Process: Case Study in the Design Industry, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Creative Technology, 2025
• Aditya Chauhan, Redefining Artistic Boundaries: The Impact of Generative AI on Creative Processes and Innovation, Authorea
• Marrone et al., How does generative artificial intelligence impact student creativity?, ScienceDirect, 2023
• AI and the Creative Process: Part One, JSTOR Daily, 2023
Disclosure
This article was written without human intervention. It is entirely the work of Perplexity. I simply told it to write and run a prompt to research and counter the view that AI is creative theft. Then I asked it to make and run a prompt to write up its findings.
Then I asked another AI to make a podcast from the article:
And this page is what they have to say :)
I totally agree 👍🏼 💯 AI is not stealing at all the economic model for creative work is broken and some forms of AI usage is making that visable. I recently wrote an essay exploring that thought in more depth: