A declared account
HAMP Mark describes the creator’s process declaration. It does not independently verify it.
About & discussion
A proposal for a shared language
HAMP stands for Human and Machine Provenance. The marks give creators and publishers a concise way to describe how work was made, supported by a fuller process declaration.
From conversations about making
Transparency, in practical terms.
HAMP Mark emerged from conversations among creators and publishing professionals about describing human and AI contributions clearly.
The aim is a useful shared convention for publications, creative credits and other places where the origins and production of work matter. It welcomes creators working without generative AI, those using it extensively and everyone between.
This is a proposed convention, Draft 0.1. The five categories and their boundaries remain open for discussion.
The thinking behind the categories
Human creativity, with support.
Writers, editors, colourists, musicians, producers and other collaborators offer a familiar starting point. A creator can work with others and retain creative leadership.
Human-created does not mean one person working alone. Human collaborators can contribute ideas and expression and receive appropriate credits.
Routine proofreading and technical processing sit within Human-created, including AI used for those tasks where it preserves the work’s creative content and intended expression. An inventory of routine tools is not required.
The useful question is what AI contributed to the concept and expression. When AI supplies new or reworked creative material retained in the work, examine who established the direction and how the result was shaped.
Human-led creation recognises that human leadership can continue alongside those contributions. Shared creative development describes repeated changes to both concept and expression.
Status & limits
A declaration. With clear limits.
Categories describe contributions and creative decisions. They do not rank quality, worth, authenticity or ethical merit.
Separate rights questions
The category does not establish ownership, source permissions or legal compliance.
No quality guarantee
The mark is not a quality score or a guarantee of factual accuracy.
Boundaries being tested
All five categories are being examined for clarity and usefulness across creative fields.
Existing approaches
Related questions. Different approaches.
These authoritative sources provide context. They do not establish HAMP Mark’s originality, endorsement, compatibility or integration with another system.
C2PA / Content Credentials
C2PA specifies cryptographically bound, tamper-evident provenance records for digital assets. Its explainer distinguishes validation of a record from judging whether the content or account is true.
HAMP Mark is a reader-facing process declaration. HAMP Mark does not create or validate Content Credentials. No C2PA integration, compatibility or certification is claimed.
C2PA and Content Credentials ExplainerIPTC digital source descriptions
IPTC provides controlled metadata terms describing digital sources, including media created with generative AI and media edited using it. These are source descriptions, rather than the five creative-role categories proposed here.
The ideas address related questions at different levels. No one-to-one mapping has been established, and the website does not write IPTC metadata.
IPTC Digital Source Type vocabularyHuman Authored
The Authors Guild’s Human Authored programme is a certification scheme for human-written literary text, with registration and its own usage terms and limited exceptions for AI use.
HAMP Mark proposes declarations across five processes and multiple media. It is not part of that programme and does not certify eligibility for it.
The Authors Guild: Human Authored usage guidelinesAlso consulted: C2PA’s FAQ, IPTC’s metadata user guide and the Authors Guild’s May 2026 clarification. Human Authored has its own criteria and terms; do not infer eligibility from a HAMP category. Sources checked 9 October 2026; review current terms before adoption.
Questions for discussion
Make the convention useful in practice.
The draft invites discussion among creators, editors, researchers and publishers. If someone sent you this link, please reply to them with your thoughts.
Are the boundaries clear?
Can people distinguish routine technical processing, creative leadership and repeated shared development in their field?
What needs its own declaration?
Which components should be separated, and where should a reader find the fuller account?
Do the marks work in context?
Are the connected arrangements legible with their full labels in publications, credits and captions?
What remains to be agreed?
Test final wording, artwork and print sizes, settle reuse terms, and decide how versions and corrections should be maintained.
Privacy
Explore examples. No submissions.
The website has no work uploads, creator profiles, contact forms, mailing lists or free-text process submissions. It contains no analytics, tracking pixels, advertising or AI API integration.
Example selection, disclosures and symbol display controls run locally in your browser. They do not transmit your selections or use browser storage. Fonts and assets are served with the site.
This discussion draft is publicly readable without an account. Hosting infrastructure may process request or access information; its logging and retention policies have not been independently established. External source links lead to those organisations’ websites and policies.
Possible future development
A guide to help describe a process.
A future guide could ask clarifying questions and suggest a category, explanation and declaration from a person’s account of their process. The creator would confirm the final declaration. This feature is not part of the current website.