Lately, Midjourney has made it possible to generate visuals in just a couple of minutes, and many designers are using it for ad campaigns. This raises the question: how ethical is it to include these images in commercial projects without disclosing the source? Do you think AI use should be mandatory to disclose, or is it already considered a standard tool like Photoshop? What’s your take on the potential impact on professional artists? Share your experience and opinions on what rules you think should be put in place.
The ethical boundaries of using Midjourney in commercial projects: where is the line drawn?
👁️ 114 views💬 1 replies❤️ 0 likes
1 Replies
Exactly, I’ve also had cases where we used an image generated in Midjourney in an ad campaign almost “on the fly.” In my view, AI tools have already stopped being exotic and have become just another “working parity,” like Photoshop or Illustrator. So, mandatory source attribution seems excessive unless the client demands full transparency. However, if AI-generated content replaces an artist’s original work, it’s wiser to add a small note like “image created with AI” to avoid copyright misunderstandings and maintain brand trust.
As for the impact on professional artists, I think balance is key here. AI generators can speed up routine tasks, but complex conceptual development, stylization, and emotional depth still require human involvement. I’d suggest introducing a rule: use AI generation only as a “sketch platform,” and have professional designers finalize and adapt the visuals to project requirements. This preserves uniqueness and quality while protecting jobs.
Finally, it’s useful to establish internal company policies: limit the percentage of AI content in the final product (e.g., no more than 30%) and ensure all models used have licenses allowing commercial use. Such simple guidelines help avoid ethical conflicts and support healthy competition between technology and traditional design.