We’re Asking the Wrong Question About AI

What a conversation about AI revealed about the changing value of human creativity.

When Kelly Montez and I planned our recent Community Table conversation with Rob Haggart, founder of A Photo Editor, and Mary Dail, President of the AMA, I assumed we’d spend an hour talking about artificial intelligence. After all, our plan was to dig into AI, contracts, copyright, artists’ rights, and the future of our industry.

But early on, I realized we weren’t really talking about AI anymore. We were talking about value. More specifically, the value of human creativity at a moment when technology is making it easier than ever to create content.

Each of us came at that question from a different place. Rob drew on decades of technological change in photography. Mary talked about contracts, copyright, and the growing importance of protecting original work. Kelly focused on education and community, and the power of making sure artists aren’t navigating this transition alone. I kept coming back to how different this technological shift feels from the ones we’ve lived through before.

By the end of the conversation, one question lingered in my mind:

What are clients actually paying creative professionals for now?

I think that question, not whether AI is good or bad, faster or cheaper, is the one that will define the next chapter of our industry.

Every technological shift has changed how we work. This one may be changing why we’re hired.

Here are a few things from the conversation that are worth sharing. And, if you want to listen for yourself, link here.

Every technological shift has changed the tools. This one is changing the relationship.

Photography has survived enormous disruption. Film became digital. Portfolios became websites. CGI transformed production. Photographers became directors. Every one of those shifts forced us to adapt. But there was one thing they all had in common. The artist was still invited into the room.

During our conversation, Rob shared an example I hadn’t heard before. He talked about autofocus. When autofocus arrived, sports photographers no longer needed the incredible technical skill of manually tracking fast-moving athletes. The camera suddenly did something only the photographer had been able to do before.

It changed the craft. It didn’t eliminate the photographer. That struck me because, like this innovation, AI also feels fundamentally different. It made me think about something I’ve been talking about for months.

In all of those other transitions, the photographer was invited into the room. They learned CGI. They learned digital. They learned motion. While artists are absolutely learning AI today, many agencies and brands are experimenting internally and not always inviting us into the room in the same way.

That, to me, is the biggest shift. Technology isn’t simply changing the work. It’s changing who gets included in the creative process.

We were never paid to push the shutter.

The more we talked, the clearer something became. Great photographers have never been hired simply because they own cameras. They’re hired because they solve problems. They understand people. They direct talent. They create ideas. They make hundreds of decisions every day that no prompt could ever anticipate.

AI is forcing us to articulate something we’ve always known but rarely had to explain.

The deliverable was never just the image.

AI iterates. Artists originate.

There is one sentence from Mary Dail that I have been sharing with anyone who will listen,

“AI iterates. Artists originate.”

AI is remarkably good at creating variations. It can remix. Extend. Refine. Generate endless alternatives. But every iteration depends on someone creating something worth iterating in the first place. Someone has to imagine it. Someone has to shape it. Someone has to know why it should exist.

As iteration becomes easier and cheaper, originality becomes more valuable. Not less.

The ripple effects go far beyond photographers.

Mary shared a story that perfectly illustrated this. A recent production required her photographer to shoot talent reaching toward an empty table. The food would be generated later with AI. No food stylist. No styling team. One creative decision eliminated an entire specialty.

We often frame AI as replacing photographers. It doesn’t. It affects producers. Stylists. Hair and makeup artists. Digital technicians. Retouchers. Assistants.Every commercial production supports an entire creative ecosystem. When production changes, the impact spreads far beyond the person holding the camera.

Accountability may become the most valuable thing we sell.

One realization kept surfacing throughout our conversation. AI doesn’t simply automate image creation. It removes people from decisions.

Who secured permissions? Who understands copyright? Who protected the talent? Who made sure the image reflects the brand honestly? Who can explain why a creative decision was made? Those aren’t software questions.They’re human ones.

Ironically, the faster AI makes production, the more valuable human judgment becomes.

Contracts are becoming creative tools.

Much of our conversation centered around rights. Derivative works. Training. Usage. Work-for-hire.

These aren’t abstract legal concepts anymore. They’re becoming central to creative value. We talked a lot about what I think is one of the most important distinctions our industry needs to understand.

People often align AI rights with work-for-hire. This is not accurate. Traditional work-for-hire transfers ownership of a fixed body of work. AI can generate an unlimited number of future works from that original creation. Those are fundamentally different things.

It’s one of the reasons so many artist representatives and increasingly photographers themselves are spending more time negotiating contracts than ever before.

We’re not trying to stop technology. We’re trying to make sure creativity still has value inside it.

Community may be our greatest advantage.

Toward the end of the conversation, Kelly said something that beautifully shifted the tone. She said what gives her hope isn’t the technology. It’s the community.

Photographers helping photographers. Representatives sharing contract language. Organizations collaborating instead of competing. Experienced professionals mentoring those just entering the industry.

For years, so many of us negotiated in isolation.Today we’re comparing notes. Sharing language. Teaching one another. Building a collective understanding of what responsible AI should look like.

That gives us all hope.

So what are clients paying us for now?

Not simply for content. Not simply for production. They’re paying for judgment. Taste. Original thinking. Relationships. Trust. Accountability. The ability to solve problems that no machine even knows exist.

Near the end of our discussion, Rob said something wonderfully simple,

“We want to reward artists who have vision and talent and skills.”

Exactly.

That’s what this conversation is really about. Not resisting technology. Not pretending AI isn’t here. But making sure that as technology evolves, we don’t lose sight of the people whose ideas make all of it possible.

For the past two years, we’ve been asking whether AI can make images. Of course it can. But I don’t think that’s the question that matters anymore.

The more important question is this:

In a world where anyone can generate an image, what becomes truly valuable?

After spending an hour around the Community Table with Rob, Mary, Kelly, and so many of the ideas that continue to shape our industry, I think I know the answer.

Not less human creativity. More. Because originality, judgment, accountability, and trust aren’t becoming obsolete. They may be becoming the most valuable things we have left.

Listen to the full Community Table conversation here, and then join us at the table by sharing your thoughts in the comments below. We’d love to keep the conversation going.