Faced with the vast possibilities offered by generative artificial intelligence systems to produce creative content at the click of a button, artists are beginning to organize their pushback. Across the Atlantic, following actor Matthew McConaughey earlier this year, American pop star Taylor Swift registered a photo of herself on stage and two voiceprints with the US Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) 10 days ago. These two initiatives by global stars may prove landmark moments, as the capacity to produce content inspired by artists and their works reaches industrial scale thanks to specialized generative AI.
In Europe, parliamentarians are beginning to grapple with the issue. Earlier this year, for example, a bill was presented to the French parliament to establish a presumption of exploitation of cultural content by artificial intelligence providers. As generative AI reshapes the creative landscape for good, initiatives are multiplying to provide new solutions. And one of them is led by a familiar face in French fashion: Thomas Cohen.
After a rich career in fashion- founding the brand and concept store bontonrunning the premium Parisian multi-brand retailer Thank youand launching the cheerful, family-oriented and highly visual brand concept Code Couleur- the entrepreneur has teamed up with a close friend, musician Emmanuel Lipszyc, to develop a concept of a very different nature. His new challenge is to enable creators and brands to defend their intellectual property against generative artificial intelligence systems. Noting that 40 million pieces of content are created every day, and that 90% of digital content could be generated by AI by the end of 2026, IPFC (Intellectual Property for Creators), which Guillaume Lacroix, founder of the media company Brut, has just joined, launches on Tuesday. Inspired by SACEM’s one-stop shop, which collects royalties from music broadcasters before distributing them among authors, composers and publishers, the organization aims to position itself as an intermediary between creators, artists and brands, and those who use their image or creations.
This new player, unlike traditional companies in the sector, arrives at a time when the intellectual property framework for generative AI remains unresolved, as does the question of how creators should be remunerated.
Dorien Herremans, a researcher specializing in AI-generated music and an associate professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, noted the complexity of the subject in a dedicated article last year. “During training, artificial neural networks are fed thousands of musical works. They don’t memorize these works, but rather learn the statistical relationships between their musical elements, much as our brains learn patterns through repeated exposure,” explains the specialist. “Unlike databases, neural networks don’t store the songs used for training, but instead internalize statistical patterns; it is therefore difficult to determine whether particular musical works were used to train a model. What’s more, since AI companies can easily delete their training data, verification is virtually impossible.”
She also asks how one would remunerate several artists whom the AI may have referred to construct a track. The researcher posits the creation of AI-trained verification tools that would enable a licensing system to be enforced- a problem that extends far beyond the music sector, encompassing artistic works in the broad sense, as well as the image and distinctive attributes of individuals and brands.
For its part, IPFC sees regulation gathering pace and has opted for a system that identifies, in queries on AI platforms, names rather than works—even though works are the usual reference point in intellectual property legislation. “We’re certain that the only way to solve this problem is to protect human creation at the prompt stage, by name,” argues Thomas Cohen, calling for a paradigm shift. “If we start from this principle, all existing intellectual property protection laws cover this issue.”
In practice, the idea is to identify the names of artists, public figures or creators as soon as a user writes a prompt. “If someone writes a prompt saying ‘make me a song in the style of Francis Cabrel’ or ‘a photo in the style of Studio Ghibli,’ with our approach we know who has been invoked. And we can authorize, prohibit, monetise… In other words, create a business model,” explains Thomas Cohen, who notes that projections put the market for generative AI at between $60 and $100 billion by 2032.
While he considers the sector to be “the Wild West” at present, the entrepreneur believes generative AI is approaching its “Napster moment,” a reference to the 2000s, when streaming platforms began to monetise subscriptions and pay royalties to artists. The French venture promises creators the identification of potential infringements of their intellectual property in AI-generated content, monitoring of publications and the ability to request content removal.
While the music sector is indeed particularly concerned, the IPFC team sees significant potential across all domains, including the rights of luxury and fashion brands as well as the likenesses of athletes.
What’s interesting about the model we’re developing is that there’s an initial revenue flow. And there’s also a second stream when the creator agrees to create a license to appear in a video or in a song.” In the IPFC project, all these options could become sources of revenue. For its debut, the entity is targeting deployment in France, which accounts for no less than 16% of the world’s intellectual property filings. The entrepreneurs also intend to lead the way in one of the world’s leading countries in this field.
According to the founders, the organization has already brought on board several renowned artists in the music and film industries, and negotiations are well advanced with top-level athletes. However, despite Thomas Cohen’s expertise in the field, fashion brands are still observing the situation.
The former fashion boss has no doubt about the sector’s potential. “Tomorrow, you’ll be filming your child playing football. You could potentially insert Ousmane Dembélé or Kylian Mbappé to pass them the ball. And the player could be wearing a branded T-shirt, and a car could be parked nearby. Licenses will enable product placement 2.0, or even 3.0, because it will be highly effective.”
IPFC is reportedly in talks with a major player in generative AI which, while most platforms are currently creating their own advertising networks, would position itself on this licensing model, due to come into force in 2027. While the potential is considerable, the trio of entrepreneurs will have to convince both creatives and AI players of the long-term viability of their project. Their expertise in the creative world and their track record as successful entrepreneurs are bound to work in their favour.
This article is an automatic translation.
Click here to read the original article.
Copyright © 2026 FashionNetwork.com All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply