AI is a contract term now

A year ago, most of the conversation about AI and creators was about whether to use it at all. That has largely settled. HubSpot's writeup on the creator economy this week describes the shift plainly: most creators now treat AI output as a rough first draft rather than a finished product, something to push against before they publish. The more interesting question is where the disagreement went once the should-we-use-it part cooled off, and the answer is the contract.

HubSpot reports that some brands are now asking for access to creators' AI prompts, and that creators are starting to write their own AI-use clauses back to protect their voice. I keep rereading that. Two parties who used to negotiate over deliverables are now negotiating over process, over who gets to see how the work was made. A prompt has become something you can be asked to hand over, or decline to.

What's being negotiated in those clauses is provenance. Whose judgment shaped the work, and how much of it came from a model any competitor could also run. That question didn't used to be worth a clause, because the answer was obvious. A person made it, and you could watch them making it. It isn't obvious now, so the parties are doing what people do when something valuable stops being self-evident. They write it down and assign it to someone.

The reason brands care shows up in the engagement numbers. Emplifi found that more than 73% of brands used Instagram collab posts in the first half of 2026, and that creator-led collaborations outperformed standard posts, with smaller brands seeing around five times the interactions. That's one platform and one vendor's data, so read it as directional rather than a benchmark. The direction matches what I hear from marketers, though. The specific, identifiable person is what the audience responds to, and that is the asset the collab is buying. A brand asking to inspect the prompt behind that work is trying to audit the thing it is paying a premium for.

There's a detail in the HubSpot piece I don't want to skip. It notes that women are about 22% less likely than men to be regular AI users at work, partly because using it can read as cutting corners. If disclosure hardens into contract language, the people already worried about looking like they cut corners are the ones a how-was-this-made clause exposes first. Worth watching who that helps.

For a marketing lead, this is less abstract than it sounds. If you hire creators, or your agency does, someone will have to decide what your side of that clause says. Whether you ask to see prompts, whether you accept a creator's terms about theirs, whether disclosure runs one way or both. Those look like small decisions now, and they set a precedent you will be living with.

None of this is really about the tools. Everyone has the same models. What's getting written into agreements is a claim about the human part, that it exists, that it is identifiable, that it is worth protecting. Marketing Brew reported this week that 85% of people say they stay loyal to brands that feel genuine. Genuine is getting harder to fake and easier to demand proof of, and the proof is starting to live in the paperwork.

This is one of the questions I'm taking to the marketing practitioners I'm sitting down with this fall. Not whether they use AI, since everyone does, but what they've started putting in writing about it.

Sources

Back to blog