AI-assisted jewellery design: who makes the creative decisions?
CIBJO’s ethics report examines generative AI, intellectual property and internal governance. Its practical implication for jewellery studios is to retain a reviewable record of references, human decisions and approvals.
The report focuses on authorship and responsibility
CIBJO’s Ethics Commission release of 30 July examines generative AI in jewellery design, CAD and rendering. It distinguishes work where people direct creative choices from output where the system determines much of the expression, and calls for internal rules that respect others’ intellectual property.
Keep a practical record of creative decisions
Our reading is to keep reference sources, their permitted uses, human revisions and final approvals together in each project. That record helps a studio explain how a design was developed and identify who reviewed it before production or customer presentation.
Custom work also needs clear expectations about when AI may be used and which files can be submitted to external tools. A consistent review step is more actionable than asking a designer to resolve every question alone. The report offers industry guidance; individual legal obligations depend on the relevant jurisdiction and contract.
