Copyright and AI-Generated Images: What You Need to Know

The copyright status of AI-generated images depends on human involvement: in most jurisdictions, an image created solely from a prompt is not considered a protected work, because there is no human author. If a person contributes their own verifiable creative decisions, that part can be protected.

Who is the author of an AI-generated image?

The starting point of intellectual property is human authorship. Civil law systems, such as those in Europe, require an original creation that reflects the personality of its author. The Anglo-American copyright system relies on originality and on the notion of an author, and in the United States the Copyright Office has held that works without a human author cannot be registered.

This means the model cannot hold rights, and that whoever writes a prompt does not automatically become the author. The reason is that the output depends on a statistical process the user does not control in detail. Two people using the same text can get different images, and the same person may be unable to reproduce their own result.

For a brand or agency, the practical consequence is uncomfortable: an image generated entirely with AI may be left without exclusive protection, and a third party could reuse it with no solid basis to stop them. The risk is lower for a decorative background and higher for a character, a logo or a campaign visual.

What happens with copyright in AI images when there is human intervention

The boundary is not binary. A work can combine generated elements and human contributions, and protection is recognised for what the person contributes, not for what the machine produces. Selection, composition, arrangement and creative modifications are the areas where that originality is usually sought.

Consider a case: a furniture manufacturer starts from its own photograph of its product, generates an environment with AI, and then assembles, retouches and corrects the whole. Here the human decisions are numerous and documentable. By contrast, writing a description and accepting the first variant delivered offers a much weaker argument for authorship.

That is why keeping evidence matters: working files with layers, intermediate versions, your own references and a record of the decisions taken. This approach fits a workflow in which AI in professional image production is one phase and not the sole origin of the image, which strengthens both quality and legal standing.

Licences and commercial use by tool

An image lacking protection does not prevent you from using it. Commercial use is governed by each platform’s terms of service, which can vary depending on the plan purchased, and those terms change over time. Some conditions allow the results to be exploited, while others restrict them on free plans or require attribution.

Before bringing a tool into a client project, it is worth checking several points:

• Whether the plan purchased expressly authorises commercial use.
• Whether the platform offers any coverage or indemnity against third-party claims.
• What happens to the images and prompts you upload: whether they are stored or used for training.
• Whether there are restrictions by sector, for example in advertising or regulated products.

It is advisable to keep a copy of the terms in force on the production date. If a contract with the client states that the deliverable is fully exclusive, that statement must be consistent with what the tool actually allows and with the possible lack of protection of the work.

Infringement risks from training data

There is a second front, distinct from ownership: whether the output or the training itself infringes the rights of others. There are open lawsuits in several countries against model developers over the use of protected works in training, and their resolution has not yet set a uniform standard. Any categorical statement on the matter is premature.

For a professional, the concrete risk appears when an output resembles too closely a work, a highly recognisable style, a brand or an identifiable person. Asking for something “in the style of” a living artist, or generating elements with third-party logos and designs, multiplies the exposure. Image rights and registered trademarks, which operate independently of copyright, also count.

In commercial production, a prudent practice is to avoid references to specific creators, review the result before publishing it, and not use AI for elements that identify the client’s brand, such as mascots or symbols, where exclusivity is critical.

AI legislation: a framework in motion

AI legislation is advancing along different paths. In the European Union, the artificial intelligence regulation introduces transparency obligations, including the labelling of synthetic content in certain cases, and requires providers of general-purpose models to have copyright compliance policies. Other jurisdictions have opted for guidance from registration offices or for case-by-case court decisions.

This creates a problem for anyone working with clients in several markets: an image may be treated one way in one country and differently in another. Application deadlines and details are evolving, so the right course is to consult an intellectual property lawyer in the country where the work will be exploited, especially for widely distributed campaigns.

What does seem to be consolidating is the logic of transparency: declaring when and how AI has been used is becoming a reasonable expectation, both from clients and from publishing platforms.

How to reduce risk in a professional project

The most solid strategy combines your own material with AI as support. When the base is a render or a photograph of the product, authorship of that part is clear and the generated element is limited to a complement, such as a background or an ambience. This is the approach of combining AI and real photography in a single composition, where human control is explicit.

In addition, it is advisable to set out in the contract what is delivered, which part incorporates AI, which tool was used and who assumes each responsibility. Asking any supplier, a studio included, about these conditions is sound practice and not a formality.

If your project requires exclusivity and registration, such as a brand identity, a character or a central campaign visual, it is preferable to rely on 3D rendering or photo compositing with documented human authorship and reserve AI for secondary elements. For ephemeral or low-risk content, such as proofs of concept, pure generative AI may be enough, provided the tool’s terms allow commercial use.

Frequently asked questions

Can I register an AI-generated image?

It depends on the country and the degree of human intervention. An image produced only with a prompt is usually rejected; a work with your own creative contributions can be registered, with protection limited to that human part.

Can I use an AI image commercially?

Normally yes, if the terms of the tool and the plan purchased authorise it. Lacking protection does not prevent you from using it, but it does mean you cannot stop others from reusing it.

Who is liable if the image infringes third-party rights?

Liability usually falls on whoever publishes or exploits the image, unless the platform offers contractual coverage. That is why it is advisable to review the result and set responsibilities in writing with the client.