Part of the 20–26 October editorial series. Prepared and source-checked on 26 October 2026.
Describe the work behind the finished asset
Credit AI-assisted brand work by identifying who made the consequential decisions and what the tools contributed. Strategy, image generation, drawing, editing, production and final approval can belong to different people. A useful credit makes those contributions understandable without claiming a process you cannot substantiate.
Tom May's Creative Bloq commentary, published on 25 October, discusses AI platforms commissioning human identity designers. How&How's own Ideogram project page supplies a first-party example of studio work. Neither source establishes a search-ranking benefit from credits. My recommendation is a contribution record that supports accurate public descriptions and practical handovers.
Record contributions while the project is active
Start with the decisions rather than a list of software. Who defined the positioning? Who selected and shaped the visual direction? Who produced source imagery? Who corrected lettering, prepared the files and approved the final claim? Record the person and evidence supporting each answer.
Keep the record at the right level. An entire campaign may share a strategy owner, while individual photographs or illustrations have separate credits and permissions. If an assistant prepares draft copy, distinguish that work from the person who verifies the facts and approves publication. The same person may hold several roles; there is no need to invent a team.
Make tool descriptions specific and bounded
Use descriptions that match the actual production. Generated concept imagery, assisted retouching and layout exploration mean different things. Avoid a sweeping label that implies either complete human execution or complete machine authorship when the record shows a mixed process.
For a fictional studio project, a clear record could say that one designer set the art direction, generated exploratory image options, repainted the selected composition and prepared the final files. That describes a possible process, not a completed JQ client engagement. The point is to preserve the relationship between the description and evidence rather than adopt those words as a universal credit formula.
Write a short public credit from the record
Choose the details a reader needs to assess responsibility. Name the designer or studio, the relevant contribution and significant production assistance where appropriate. Credit external collaborators accurately and check their preferred names. Do not imply that someone approved the final work merely because they supplied one component.
Put the full account on the project page when a small asset cannot carry it comfortably. Then decide what each derivative needs. A motion cut, a website image and a social crop may have different practical constraints, but their credits should remain compatible. Required third-party attribution should survive those format changes.
Carry the record through exports and updates
Attach asset identifiers, approved credit wording, usage limitations and an owner to the handover. Keep private production notes and source records separate from the public files. A client should be able to understand which material can be edited or reused without reading a raw prompt log.
When an asset changes, review whether the existing credit is still accurate. Replacing an illustration, adding music or commissioning a new edit can change the contribution record. Metadata, visible credits and project documentation serve different purposes; none should be treated as an automatic substitute for the others or as proof of complete rights clearance.
Check responsibility before making authenticity claims
Ask whether each public statement is supported: who contributed, what was generated or edited, and who approved the result. Remove claims about painstaking craft, original photography or manual drawing when the record does not establish them. Specific, modest descriptions are more useful than an authenticity story assembled after the work.
This fits the handover for AI brand visuals and product films. The practical deliverable is an editable asset package with clear contributions and obligations. It lets a business explain its work honestly while keeping the longer production record available for future decisions.
Link Map
Sources and editorial review
Sources checked on 26 October 2026. The publication date is assigned to the 20–26 October editorial series; this edition was prepared and reviewed on 26 October 2026. Proposed workflows and illustrative examples are JQ AI SYSTEMS editorial analysis, not reports of completed client tests.
- Creative Bloq: Why do AI platforms want humans to design their branding? (25 October 2026; Branding commentary by Tom May).
- How&How: Ideogram (publication date not shown; checked 26 October 2026; First-party design project page; publication date not shown).