Instagram’s AI-copying problem has no clear fix yet

The complaint system has a gap

Last week, Wired reported that creators of AI slop were reworking real comedians’ performances into videos featuring generated characters, often young, curvy women. The clips can funnel viewers to OnlyFans pages offering paid content.

Earlier this month, comedian George Brett Olson posted a video saying an AI account had stolen his performance and copied his clothes. The account had more than 300,000 followers. Mosseri replied that banning AI content outright was not practical: detection would get harder, and not all AI content was bad. But he acknowledged that there was a lot of AI slop.

Mosseri said Instagram wanted to show creators more of their original work. If an AI creator copied someone else’s material wholesale, the platform should investigate what it could do. At the time, he said he did not yet know what measures would work.

Over the weekend, Mosseri returned to the issue after an artist’s visual work was repurposed into an AI-slop video. In a comment on Olson’s Threads post, he called the situation difficult and said Instagram was still trying to work out how to respond. He said he was concerned and that his team was actively looking for a solution.

For now, creators can file copyright complaints and request removal of stolen material. Mosseri said that process is not enough: many comedians and dancers may never have registered copyrights for their work. Instagram needs to help creators without making it easy for bad actors to file false complaints, which he said happens constantly.

Cheap copying, uncertain enforcement

The underlying tension is harder than a takedown form. Meta is competing in AI, making a broad ban on AI content across its social platforms unlikely. Copyright theft predates generative AI, but AI has made copying far less labor-intensive. A stolen comedy routine no longer needs to be performed, recorded and uploaded by the thief; a painting no longer needs to be recreated by hand.

I think the important distinction is between identifying AI and identifying appropriation. Mosseri’s comments describe a platform that sees the harm but has not explained how it will decide which AI-made posts cross the line, especially when the original creator has no registered copyright.

A simple pipeline and a generation button can produce cheap content at scale. If viewers believe the account belongs to an attractive woman rather than someone repackaging another creator’s work, the operator may also make money by directing them to OnlyFans.

Meta has not said how it will address this abuse on Instagram or its other social networks. Without a clearer system, creators may have to keep finding copied work themselves and filing complaints one post at a time, while the platform’s moderation effort remains limited.