AI is not a threat or a miracle. It is a set of tools with very specific uses, very real limits, and legal implications worth understanding before using them professionally. In recent years, every sector has had to learn how to relate to technologies that change very fast — and the arts sector is no exception.
This guide is not a manifesto or a warning: it is a practical map for artists who want to know what is out there and what is not. Which tools exist, what they are actually useful for, and where the problems begin that are worth knowing about before running into them.
For text and communication
Text generation tools — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini — can be useful assistants for very specific tasks: a first draft of a bio, a press release, an email to a promoter or a venue.
To get real value from them, you need to give them real context: who you are, what you have done, who you are addressing and what tone you want. The AI knows nothing about you unless you tell it. And what it produces is a first draft, not a finished text: you need to review it, adapt it and run your own voice through it.
The real limit is this: they generate plausible text, not authentic text. A bio written entirely by AI that has not been filtered through who you actually are sounds like an AI bio. And increasingly, people notice. If you want to go deeper on how to use these tools well for this specific case, the guide How to use AI to write your artist bio walks through it step by step.
For images
Midjourney, DALL-E and Adobe Firefly generate images from text prompts. For some uses, they can be genuinely practical: exploring an aesthetic for a project, creating concept mockups, generating visual material for social media that is not a professional press photo.
What they do not work for: press photos need to be you. A promoter, journalist or booking agent who receives AI-generated press material without disclosure can react very badly. The professional image of an artist requires real photography. Ressona works with Pocallum for photography sessions and visual identity when that is what is needed.
There is also an important legal note: AI-generated images cannot always be registered as your own work. In the EU, the current criterion requires significant human creative contribution to recognise authorship. In the US, the Copyright Office has similarly ruled that purely AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection, though works with meaningful human authorship may qualify. In the UK, the approach differs: copyright can exist in computer-generated works but the rules are in active evolution. Read the terms of service of each tool and, if the material is for commercial use, consult someone who knows the applicable legislation in your jurisdiction.
For music
Tools like Suno, Udio or Stable Audio generate tracks from text descriptions. There are legitimate and limited uses: generating backing tracks for testing, exploring harmonies, creating ambient music for your own videos where you do not want to use someone else’s music.
The critical limit here is distribution. You cannot publish AI-generated music as your own work on distribution platforms — Spotify, Apple Music and similar — without disclosing it. Distributors like Distrokid or TuneCore have updated or are updating their policies on AI-generated music. Rules are evolving quickly and vary by platform. Look up what is current at the time you need it.
For video and post-production
Runway and Pika enable AI-assisted editing and generation of short clips. CapCut is useful for automatic subtitling and effects without needing to know how to edit video. For social media material, concert teasers or visual playlists, this can be enough.
None of this replaces professional audiovisual production for an EPK or a music video. For those uses, technical quality and aesthetic coherence require a human eye — and usually a team.
The limits worth being clear about
Copyright. AI-generated material generally does not carry copyright assignable to the user. This depends on the tool and the jurisdiction, and regulations are in active evolution across the EU, US, UK and elsewhere. Read the terms of service of each tool before any commercial use.
Training data. Many tools were trained on artists’ work without explicit permission. Using them is a personal decision; being aware of it is professional. Some artists have decided not to use them for this reason; others use them with very specific criteria. There is no single right answer.
Authenticity. In the art and music market, provenance matters. A collector, promoter or journalist who discovers that your material is AI-generated without disclosure can react badly — and rightly so, if you did not mention it. If you use AI, disclose it when it is relevant. Build trust, do not avoid it.
The practical rule. Use AI as an assistant, not a substitute. The filter always has to be you: your voice, your judgement, your final decision about what goes out into the world under your name.
Ressona works with artists to build an authentic and professional digital identity — with or without AI. If you want to review how you present yourself to the sector, talk to us.