A survey of 400 creative and marketing professionals in Japan found that 59% of companies now use generative AI in creative work - but 71.4% of those companies do not actively disclose that use. The findings, published June 30 by creative firm Amana, reveal a growing gap between AI adoption and transparency, with copyright fears and a lack of internal guidelines driving the silence.
The study also found that 61.75% of respondents said AI already influences creative decision-making within their organizations. These numbers suggest generative AI has "moved beyond the experimental stage and into practical day-to-day use," the report concluded.
Adoption without transparency
Despite widespread use, most companies are keeping quiet. The survey showed that 71.4% of AI-using firms do not publicly disclose it. This aligns with patterns seen across creative industries: a September 2025 survey by the Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association (CESA) found 51% of Japanese game companies were using AI, primarily for generating visual assets and text.
Some game companies have since narrowed their policies. Capcom, for example, now limits AI to "routine tasks" rather than creative work. Yet adoption continues to accelerate, and consumer backlash often follows when AI use becomes public. That friction may explain why many organizations choose not to volunteer the information.
Copyright and quality concerns
The biggest barrier cited was copyright and intellectual property risk, flagged by 32.5% of respondents. A lack of clear evaluation standards (24.0%) and inconsistent output quality (21.5%) followed closely. These concerns are not abstract; they directly affect whether a generated asset can be used commercially or meets brand standards.
For creative professionals, the quality issue is especially pressing. When AI output varies significantly, teams spend more time fixing or discarding work, undercutting the speed gains the technology promises.
The policy gap
Internal guardrails are missing in many workplaces. The survey found that 43.5% of respondents either had no AI usage guidelines in place or were unsure if such guidelines existed. Without clear rules, individual creatives often make judgment calls about what tools to use and when - a situation that can lead to inconsistent practices and legal exposure.
Understanding the underlying models and their limitations is becoming part of the creative toolkit. Professionals who build familiarity with how generative AI works are better positioned to navigate these gaps, whether through formal Generative AI & LLM Courses or on-the-job experimentation.
Why this matters for creatives
When companies use AI but don't disclose it, the people making the work - designers, writers, artists - often absorb the risk. If a generated asset triggers a copyright claim or sparks audience backlash, the fallout can land on individual contributors who were never given clear policies. Creatives should push for explicit guidelines and understand the provenance of every asset they deliver. As AI becomes a daily tool, the ability to assess its risks and advocate for transparent practices is no longer optional.
Your membership also unlocks:
