AI-generated images and copyright in client work

A business that delivers generated images to clients (a design studio, an agency, a publisher, a marketing team) is delivering something whose legal status is less settled than the client assumes: the image may not be protected by copyright at all, the tool's terms may decide who owns whatever rights exist, the image may reproduce a work from the training data, and a prompt that named an artist or a celebrity may have created a claim. The clauses state what the business can warrant and assign, and the record behind them lets the business show what it did. The agreement's AI provisions come back drafted or reviewed within five working days for a fixed £595.

Who this is for

Design studios, agencies, publishers, marketing teams and any business in England and Wales delivering or publishing generated images, and clients who want to know what they are getting.

What matters in generated images and copyright

Whether a generated image is protected at all

whoever made the arrangements is the author of a computer-generated work under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a provision untested on modern tools, and only original works are protected, and the originality requirement (the author's own intellectual creation, in the standard the courts apply) is the difficulty: a prompt may or may not amount to the intellectual creation the courts look for, the courts have not decided the point for modern generative tools, and the protection a computer-generated work gets under section 12 is in any event shorter; the business should assume that a generated image with little human contribution may be unprotected, that anyone may reproduce it, and that the client building a brand on it has less than it thinks.

Who owns it if it is and what the tool's terms say

Where rights exist, the tool's terms decide who holds them as between the business and the provider: most providers assign or license output rights to the user on paid tiers and reserve more on free tiers, some prohibit commercial use on free tiers, some grant the provider a licence to the outputs, and the terms change; the business should read the terms of each tool it uses, use paid business tiers for client work, keep the terms in force at the time of each deliverable, and avoid tools whose terms reserve rights the client will need; whether the provider trains on inputs, and how long it keeps them, depends on its terms, which on business tiers generally exclude training and on consumer tiers generally do not, which matters where the business uploads a client's assets as the source.

The training data and the risk of reproducing someone else's work

A generative model can reproduce, closely or recognisably, works from its training data, and the business that publishes the reproduction for a client is the one that infringes (reproducing a substantial part of a protected work without licence is infringement under the 1988 Act whatever tool produced it); the first substantial litigation in England and Wales about training and generative models turned on its facts and left the broader position open; the policy and the clauses require generated images to be checked for recognisable reproduction before use (reverse image search, review by the designer, the provider's duplication controls where offered), and the business's indemnity to the client is limited to the images it has checked.

Style, likeness and the prompts that invite a claim

A prompt naming a living artist, illustrator or photographer produces an image in their style, which copyright may not protect but which invites a claim (passing off, and in some cases moral rights or contractual claims) and damages the business's standing with the creative community; a prompt naming a real person, or an image generated from a real person's photograph, engages their rights (through passing off, data protection and, for performers, the 1988 Act); a prompt naming a brand produces an image containing its trade marks; the clauses prohibit named-artist, named-person and named-brand prompts, require releases for anyone whose likeness is a source, and allocate the consequences of a breach.

What the business can warrant and assign to a client

The business can assign the rights it holds in generated images under the tool's terms and its own work on top of them, can warrant that it has used tools whose terms grant it the rights it assigns, that it has checked the images for recognisable reproduction and prohibited prompts, and that it has disclosed which images are generated; it cannot warrant that a generated image is protected by copyright, that it is original in the copyright sense, or that no third party will claim; the clauses draw the line, limit the infringement indemnity to the checks the business has warranted, and tell the client that generated images may be unprotected and reproducible by others, so that the client decides where a generated image is appropriate.

The clauses and the record that make the position defensible

The clauses go into the business's client agreement (the classification of deliverables as made, assisted or generated; the assignment and licence; the warranties and the indemnity; the disclosure; the client's restrictions), its freelancer agreements (the same rules and the assignment of the freelancer's rights), and its supplier arrangements with tool providers (the terms kept, the tiers used); the business keeps a record for each image of the tool, the tier, the terms in force, the prompt, the checks and the human work applied, which is the evidence in a dispute and the answer to a client's question; a tool whose terms permit training on inputs or their retention is off limits for confidential information, trade secrets and clients' data, because protection under the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 and compliance with the business's confidentiality obligations depend on the steps taken, and a client's unreleased product photographed and uploaded as a source is the breach the clauses prohibit.

What it costs

AI provisions in a contract, £595. Review or draft AI-specific terms in a supply or customer agreement. Five working days.

AI use policy, £995. Internal policy plus the accompanying contract provisions. Five working days.

Email me at geoffrey@caesar.co.uk with what you need and any documents, and I will confirm the scope and the fee in writing, usually the same working day.

What you get

• An internal AI use policy your staff will follow, rather than a document that bans everything and is quietly ignored
• Contract provisions covering output ownership, training data, confidentiality and liability
• A defensible position to give customers who ask what your AI governance looks like
• Review of your AI suppliers' terms, including what they reserve the right to change
• Practical guidance on what to permit, what to restrict and what to prohibit outright
• One round of amendments

What is not included

• Technical AI assurance, model testing or bias auditing
• Sector-specific regulatory approval
• Advice on non-UK regulatory regimes beyond flagging where they apply
• Ongoing regulatory monitoring

Questions I am often asked

Is a generated image protected by copyright?

Possibly not, where the human contribution is small: the law names the person who made the arrangements as author but protects only original works, and the courts have not decided the point for modern tools. The clauses tell the client that generated images may be unprotected.

Can we assign copyright in a generated image to a client?

The rights you hold under the tool's terms and your own work on top. The clauses assign that, warrant the terms and the checks, and limit the indemnity to the images you have checked.

Is it safe to prompt in the style of a particular artist?

It is not. Style may not be protected by copyright, but the prompt invites a passing off or other claim and damages your standing. The clauses prohibit named-artist, named-person and named-brand prompts.

Related guidance and services

• AI contracts and AI use policies, £595, the service this page describes
• SaaS and technology contracts, £995
• Data protection agreements and privacy terms, £795
• AI use policy for a design agency
• AI clauses in an agency agreement for AI-generated content

This page is general guidance for businesses in England and Wales, not advice on your own circumstances. Last reviewed: October 2026. Email geoffrey@caesar.co.uk.