On the program

1. The opening riddle — who made this image?
2. Use vs. Create — the role of the artistic director
3. The I-P-C-I loop — the studio method
4. The creative prompt — the 5 ingredients
5. Who is the author? — copyright and AI
6. The 3 rules of creative honesty
7. Studio project — the client's order!

Who made this image?

Imagine: a lighthouse on top of a flying whale,
1930s travel poster style, golden evening light.

An AI generated this image in 10 seconds.

So… who is the artist?
AI? The human who wrote the description? Person ?

Keep your answer in mind. We vote at the end of the session.

The hidden clue

The idea of the flying whale? Human.
The choice of 1930s style? Human.
The golden evening light? Human.

The AI ​​executed. Humans have imagined, chosen, directed.

An AI without human ideas produces nothing interesting.
Creativity is choice — and choice remains human.

Reminder of previous seasons

• Session 4: the art of speaking to AI (prompting)
• Session 5: AI that sees, hears and creates (images, sounds, videos)
• Session 6: ethics — transparency and accountability
• Session 7: AI in real life — it assists, does not replace

Today, we're putting it all together to learn how to
creating with AI — not just using it.

Use ≠ Create

Passive user	Artistic Director
Type a vague request	Describes a precise vision
Take the first result	Compare, review, redo
Can't say why it's a failure	Knows what he wants to change
Stops there	Iterates to HIS vision

The director analogy

A film director does not act, does not film,
don't compose the music...

And yet, it’s HIS film.

Why? Because he decides:
the scenario, the framing, the takes we keep, those we reshoot.

With generative AI, it’s the same:
the AI is your camera crew. You realize.

The I-P-C-I loop

1. Idea — what do I want? (vision, emotion, use)
2. Prompt — I describe it precisely
   3. Review — what works? what is missing?
3. Iteration — I modify and start again

The first result is rarely the correct one.
Iterating is not failing: that’s the job.

Live Demo

Prompt v1: “draw a dragon”
→ generic result, seen a thousand times

Criticism: too banal. I want a SHY dragon.

Prompt v2: “a shy little dragon hiding behind a giant flower”
→ better! But the atmosphere is flat.

Prompt v3: “…children’s book style, soft morning light, mist”
→ That’s MY dragon.

What the demo teaches us

• AI takes everything literally — it doesn't guess your intentions
• Each precise criticism improves the result
• The final result is yours: you made all the choices

Please note: a good prompt is precise, not necessarily long.
Too many contradictory constraints = confusing result!

The recipe for the creative prompt

1. Subject — what? → “a fox astronaut”
2. Style — like what? → “watercolor”, “pixel art”
3. Atmosphere — what emotion? → “melancholy”, “joyful”
4. Details — what specifically? → “cracked helmet, flag in cheese”
5. Constraints — to avoid / impose → “no text”, “poster format”

Let's test together

Prompt poor man: “Draw a cat.”
→ ingredients present: subject. That's all.

Complete prompt:
“A pirate cat on a cheese raft (subject + details),
comic style (style),
peaceful sunset ambiance (ambience),
without text in the image (constraint).”

Over to you: Exercise 1 — write your prompt in 5 ingredients!

Break

10 minutes

During the break, question to ponder:
if you win a drawing competition with an AI image…
you say it, or not?

The facts (before debating)

• In many countries, copyright protects human creations
• An image generated “alone” by an AI is often protected for no one
• The more the human directs (prompts worked, iterations, retouches),
  the more his creative contribution counts
• AIs have learned about millions of works, often without the consent of the artists → ongoing lawsuit

The law evolves quickly: what is true today may change tomorrow.

The mini-debate

“An AI-generated image: who owns it?”

Camp A — “The human is the author”
the idea, the direction, the iteration, the final choice: everything is human

Camp B — “It’s not that simple”
the AI made the concrete visual choices · it fed itself
of the work of thousands of artists · without them, nothing would exist

There is no definitive “right” answer.
The whole world is debating it — as are we.

The anger of artists

Many illustrators and musicians have discovered that
their works had been used to train AI…
without their agreement, without payment, without credit.

Result: trials, protection tools,
negotiations between artists and AI companies.

Understanding their anger means understanding why
the following rules of honesty are important.

Rule 1 — I say it

When I publish or submit work done with AI,
I mention it.

“Artwork created with the help of AI” — that’s it.

The problem is never using AI.
The problem is hiding it when it counts.
(Remember transparency — Session 6!)

Rule 2 — I respect artists

• I am not asking “in the manner of [living artist]”
  to make it look like something new
• I don't pass off someone's style as my own
• Artists who have disappeared for a long time (Van Gogh, etc.):
  public domain — acceptable, but it is mentioned

Rule 3 — I check before publishing

Before sharing generated content:

• Is the content accurate? (AI can invent — Session 3!)
• Is he respectful? (nothing hurtful or mocking)
• No recognizable real person without their consent?
  (think deepfakes — Session 5)

Ok or not ok?

Location	Verdict
Illustrate your presentation with an AI image by saying it	ok
Win a drawing competition without saying it	not ok
Generate “Van Gogh style” (by mentioning it)	it depends — acceptable
Imitate a living illustrator and sell the result	not ok

The reasoning counts more than the verdict:
transparency · respect · verification.

Your mission

Teams of 3-4. Each studio draws an order:
bakery poster · town hall mascot · album cover
reading club image · astronomy logo · refuge card

To be delivered:

1. Prompt v1 (the 5 ingredients + the client's constraints)
2. Cross Critical: the neighboring team “plays AI” and gives you 2 criticals
3. Prompt v2 improved — explaining WHAT you changed
4. The honesty statement: “created with the help of an AI”

The studio rule

We criticize the prompt and the result.
Never people.

Useful criticism is specific:
“the sky should be stormy to match the title”
“it’s ugly”

25 minutes. Stopwatch started. Get your markers!

Flash restitution

1 minute per studio:

1. The customer's order
2. The prompt v1
3. What criticism has changed
4. The prompt v2

Mandatory applause for all studios.

What we remember

• Generative AI is a studio, not an artist:
  she executes, the human directs
• The method: Idea → Prompt → Critique → Iteration
• A creative prompt = 5 ingredients:
  subject · style · atmosphere · details · constraints
• Copyright of AI works is under construction
• The 3 rules: I say it · I respect the artists · I check

The final vote

Back to the opening riddle:

“Who made the image of the flying whale?”

A) AI · B) Human · C) Both · D) Nobody

Has your answer changed since the start of the session?
Why?