Why Storyblocks Keeps Its Library 100% Human-Made
Most stock content platforms have added AI-generated assets to their libraries over the past few years. AI-powered image and video generators have rapidly improved, allowing virtually unlimited possibilities. But Storyblocks decided not to allow AI-generated content on its platform. Its library remains exclusively human-made, backed by direct licensing agreements with every artist, and the company has been explicit that this isn’t a temporary position while it figures out its AI strategy.
That choice touches on issues many business leaders are quietly working through right now. AI is clearly useful for speeding up workflows, but there are genuine concerns about legal clarity.
In this interview, Storyblocks CEO TJ Leonard explains how the company came to its decision, what enterprise buyers are starting to ask about provenance, and why he thinks the premium on authentic human work will grow rather than shrink as synthetic content becomes the baseline.
Storyblocks has chosen not to allow AI-generated content in its marketplace, even as many competitors have embraced it. What principles or long-term beliefs led to that decision?
It is a decision driven equally by our customers and our values. Fortunately, the two pointed in the same direction.
When we looked at what customers told us they valued about Storyblocks, the quality, the trust that every asset is made by a real person, the legal clarity that comes from direct agreements with copyright holders, adding AI-generated content to our Library would have undermined all of that.
Most generative AI products are not transparent about the data and content used to train their models. That creates real downstream risk for anyone using that content commercially. We have direct agreements with every artist in our library, which means our members get clear licensing and the confidence to distribute wherever their business needs. We stand behind that claim with up to $1m in indemnification. That same protection doesn’t exist with AI-generated content, and we think that security is going to matter more over time, not less.
We also believe human-made content will become more valuable as the market gets flooded with synthetic alternatives. That’s not wishful thinking. It’s what we hear in conversations with customers every day.
As generative AI becomes increasingly capable, what do you believe will remain uniquely valuable about content created by people?
A few things.
The first is perspective. AI can generate content that looks like something, but it can’t generate content that comes from somewhere. The work in our library, especially through Re: Stock, where we commission independent filmmakers to document their own communities, carries a point of view that synthetic content can’t replicate. Audiences feel the difference, even when they can’t articulate it.
The second is trust. As AI content becomes more prevalent, questions about provenance, who made this, how was it made, were they compensated, are going to matter more. Brands are already starting to ask those questions. Members who use Storyblocks can answer them clearly.
The third is legal clarity. Every asset in our library comes with a direct licensing agreement from the original copyright holder. That’s simply not something you can say about content produced by a model trained on unlicensed data.
Why do you believe maintaining a marketplace of exclusively human-made content creates greater long-term value for customers and contributors?
For customers, it comes down to trust and clarity. When you download from Storyblocks, you know what you’re getting: content made by a real person, properly licensed, with up to $1M in indemnification. That matters when you’re producing commercial content at scale. The last thing you want to do is second guess where you can legally distribute your work after investing tons of effort to create content.
For contributors, it means their work retains value. One of the real concerns in the creative community right now is that AI-generated content will flood the market and depress what human creative work is worth. Our answer isn’t to join the flood. It’s to be the alternative. Our artists earn from a revenue pool funded by member subscriptions. Every download compensates the person who made that asset. That model only works if the content stays human-made.
The two things reinforce each other. Members trust the library because it’s made by real people. Artists earn from the library because members trust it enough to subscribe.
Many creative businesses are trying to decide where AI fits into their products and workflows. What framework would you recommend for deciding where AI adds value and where maintaining a human touch matters most?
I think this is ultimately a question that every individual must answer for themselves. First of all, I think AI provides a lot of important wins for all creators. We are not anti-AI. We’re just trying to be thoughtful about what our customers need, and determine where best AI can help.
If you’re using AI to speed up a process — search, editing, transcription, workflow automation — that’s generally a clear win. The result is a more efficient creative process that still keeps the human at the center. That’s where we’ve focused our own AI tools: AI-powered search, AI video editing, AI voiceover. They help customers work faster, and make it easier to get what’s in their heads into a format that their audience can enjoy.
When it comes to the library itself, we think of Storyblocks as providing both pixels and protection, art and a license. That’s why we have decided to keep our library exclusively human-made, because we can’t promise both of those things and stand behind that promise if we allow synthetic content into the library. Our customers appreciate that.
But if you’re a content creator who only cares about the pixels, isn’t thinking about commercial distribution, or doesn’t value legal protection, then generative tools are an amazing new way to communicate ideas visually.
How has your decision to exclude AI-generated content affected your creator community, and what have you learned from the conversations you’ve had with contributors about the future of creative work?
The response has been largely positive, and in some cases more pointed than I expected. Artists have told us that our position makes them feel like their work is actually valued, not just as a commodity to be displaced, but as something worth protecting. One contributor put it simply: “You’re the only stock company that still talks to us.” That stayed with me.
What I’ve learned from those conversations is that the anxiety in the creative community right now is real and valid. These aren’t people who are opposed to technology. Most of them use AI tools in their own workflows. What they’re worried about is whether the economics of creative work will hold up as AI content becomes cheaper and more abundant. Our answer is the same as it’s always been: their work is what makes the library worth something, and our commitment to keeping the library 100% human-made reflects that.
As AI makes content creation faster and less expensive, do you think the market will place a higher premium on originality, craftsmanship, and authentic human perspective?
Yes, though it won’t happen uniformly.
For high-volume, lower-stakes content like personal social content, internal videos, and quick explainers, AI-generated content will likely dominate on cost. That’s a use case where speed and price matter more than distinctiveness, and that’s fine.
But for content where the goal is to actually connect with an audience, think brand storytelling, campaigns with real stakes, work that needs to resonate, I think the premium for authentic, human-made content will grow. Because as AI content becomes the baseline, everything that isn’t will stand out. Originality becomes more visible when everything around it looks the same.
We’re already seeing this in our conversations with enterprise customers. The question of “is this human-made?” is moving from a nice-to-have to an actual procurement consideration.
Have there been moments when maintaining a human-only marketplace was a difficult business decision? If so, how did you weigh the short-term opportunities against the long-term vision for Storyblocks?
Sure. There have been moments where the short-term economics of adding AI-generated content looked compelling: more volume, lower acquisition costs, faster library growth. Those are real trade-offs.
What’s kept us on course is a clear view of what we’d be giving up. The trust our members have in the library is built on the fact that every asset was made by a real person. The legal protection we offer depends on that. If we added AI-generated content, we’d be eroding the things that actually differentiate us.
I’ve also found it useful to ask: what does the member experience look like in three years if we go in this direction versus if we don’t? The competitive landscape is moving toward AI content. We’ve made a deliberate choice to move the other way and be the clear alternative. That requires some patience, but I think the long-term position is stronger for it.
If you could leave entrepreneurs and business leaders with one piece of advice about balancing AI adoption with human creativity, what would it be?
Be specific about the problem you’re actually trying to solve.
Most AI adoption that goes wrong is driven by a general sense of “we need to be using AI” rather than a clear view of what friction it’s eliminating or what outcome it’s improving. That leads to implementing tools that don’t fit the workflow, or making decisions about creative content that undermine trust that took years to build.
The better question is: what does your team spend time on that AI could genuinely accelerate? Start there. Then ask separately: what does your audience value that you’d be at risk of compromising if you replaced human judgment with automation, or authenticity with synthetic? Keep those two questions in tension with each other, and you’ll make better decisions than if you treat AI adoption as a single yes-or-no call.
