Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Paradigm for Creative Ownership

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.15971 v2 pith:DLK24W7W submitted 2025-05-21 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords ownershipcreativeframeworkfindingsotherparticipantsstudiessubdimensions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As generative AI tools become embedded in creative practice, questions of ownership in co-creative contexts are pressing. Yet studies of human-AI collaboration often invoke "ownership" without definition: sometimes conflating it with other concepts, and other times leaving interpretation to participants. This inconsistency makes findings difficult to compare across or even within studies. We introduce a framework of creative ownership comprising three dimensions - Person, Process, and System - each with three subdimensions, offering a shared language for both system design and HCI research. In semi-structured interviews with 21 creative professionals, we found that participants' initial references to ownership (e.g., embodiment, control, concept) were fully encompassed by the framework, demonstrating its coverage. Once introduced, however, they also articulated and prioritized the remaining subdimensions, underscoring how the framework expands reflection and enables richer insights. Our contributions include 1) the framework, 2) a web-based visualization tool, and 3) empirical findings on its utility.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. What Influences Readers' and Writers' Perceived Necessity of AI Disclosure?

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Readers see AI disclosure in writing as more necessary than writers, particularly for irreplaceable and direct AI contributions, with intentionality showing opposite effects on each group and effort showing none.

  2. Participatory, not Punitive: Student-Driven AI Policy Recommendations in a Design Classroom

    cs.HC 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Student-facilitated workshops in one design class produced AI policies highlighting double standards in disclosure requirements between students and faculty, demonstrating value in participatory governance.

Pith tools