Who owns the copyright in AI generated images?
In the UK, copyright can exist in a computer generated image, and the author is the person who made the arrangements needed to create it. In practice, your contract with whoever made the images decides what your brand can do with them.
Who owns an AI generated image in the UK?
The UK is unusual. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already has a rule for works generated by a computer where there is no human author. Section 9(3) says the author of a computer generated literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for its creation are undertaken.
Protection for these works lasts 50 years from the end of the year the work was made, which is shorter than the usual term for works with a human author.
So in principle, an AI generated product image can be protected in the UK, and the owner is whoever made the arrangements, or whoever that person's contract transfers the rights to. The difficulty is that the rule was written in the 1980s and has hardly been tested in court with modern generative tools. Lawyers disagree about how it fits with the separate requirement that a work be original.
Is UK law about to change?
Possibly. In March 2026 the UK government published its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. It proposed repealing section 9(3), the special protection for works with no human author, while making clear that works created with AI assistance, where a person makes real creative choices, would still be protected in the usual way.
At the time of writing that is a proposal, not law. The report also said the government wanted more evidence before making wider copyright changes. Check the current position before you rely on it, because this area is moving.
- Today: section 9(3) still applies to purely computer generated works.
- Proposed: remove that protection, keep protection for human creativity made with AI as a tool.
- What it means for you: the more genuine human direction behind an asset, the stronger your position under either version of the law.
What about the US?
If you sell into the US, the position is different. The US Copyright Office takes the view that copyright protects only material created by a human. Its guidance says that prompts on their own generally don't give enough control over the output to make the person writing them its author.
US courts have backed the human authorship requirement. A human can still own copyright in the parts they contribute: the selection and arrangement of material, and meaningful edits or additions to an AI output. A finished campaign asset that has been directed, composited, retouched and edited by people is in a stronger position than a single raw output.
Does the AI tool own the images?
Most commercial image and video tools say in their terms that the user owns, or may freely use, what they generate, often depending on which plan they pay for. Free tiers sometimes come with tighter conditions. These terms change, so read the current version for any tool you use directly.
Remember that a tool's terms can only pass on whatever rights exist. They can't create copyright where the law says there is none. They are a permission, not a guarantee.
Who owns the images when a studio makes them for you?
This is the question that matters most for a beauty brand, and it's answered by your contract. Whether the rights start with the studio, a designer or a freelancer, you want them to end with you, or at least to have a licence wide enough for everything you plan to do.
Look for clear wording on these points before you sign:
- Assignment or licence. Does the studio assign any copyright to you, or grant a licence? If a licence, is it exclusive, worldwide and without time limit?
- Usage. Does it cover paid ads, organic social, your website, marketplaces like Amazon, retail partners, print and out of home?
- Edits. Can you crop, resize and adapt the assets yourself?
- Third party material. Who is responsible if a reference image, font, music track or person's likeness turns out to need permission?
- People. If a real model's likeness is used, is there written permission from that person covering this use?
| Situation | Who usually holds the rights | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| You generate images yourself in a tool | You, subject to the tool's terms | Your plan's terms and any usage limits |
| A freelancer generates them | The freelancer, unless the contract says otherwise | A written assignment or broad licence |
| A studio produces them on a brief | Set by the studio contract | Assignment or licence, usage scope, third party material |
| Your logo, label and packaging artwork | You, as before | Nothing changes because AI was used |
Can someone else copy my AI generated images?
If an image is protected by copyright, the usual rules apply and you can act against copying. Where protection is uncertain, you still have other tools. Your trade marks, such as your brand name and logo, are protected separately. Your packaging artwork, made by a designer, has its own copyright. Passing off can help where someone uses your get up to mislead customers. Platform reporting tools on Amazon, Meta and TikTok also handle intellectual property complaints.
Practically, a product image that shows your real, branded product is hard for anyone else to use in a way that helps them. The bigger risk for most brands is the reverse: making sure your own assets don't borrow too closely from someone else's work.
How do you keep your position strong?
A few habits protect you whatever happens to the law.
- Keep records of the human direction behind each asset: the brief, references, chosen variations, rounds of changes and retouching notes.
- Use references for mood and direction, not as images to copy.
- Get rights in writing. A line in an email isn't enough for a campaign that will run for years.
- Only feature real people with their written permission.
- Review your contracts when UK law changes.
How this works with a studio
At Niko x Studios, each brief is directed by a person and every asset is chosen, refined and checked by a person, which is the kind of human creative input both UK and US law look for. Studio Membership includes full commercial usage rights, and real models only appear when the brand holds their written permission. You can see the terms on the Studio Membership page, or read our guide to AI models in beauty ads for the consent side.
This is general information, not legal advice. Speak to an intellectual property lawyer about your own situation.
Questions people also ask
Can I copyright an image I made with Midjourney or a similar tool in the UK?
Possibly. UK law protects computer generated works, with the person who made the arrangements treated as author, and work with real human creative input is protected in the usual way. The government has proposed removing the specific computer generated works rule, so check the current position.
Is writing a prompt enough to make me the author?
In the US, the Copyright Office says prompts alone generally aren't enough. In the UK the question hasn't been settled by the courts. Human selection, arrangement and editing strengthen your claim in both.
Do I own images an agency makes for me with AI?
Only if your contract says so. Ask for a written assignment of rights, or an exclusive licence that covers every channel you plan to use.
Can I use AI generated images commercially if copyright is unclear?
Usually yes, provided the tool's terms and your contract allow it and the image doesn't copy anyone else's protected work or use a real person's likeness without permission. The uncertainty mostly affects your ability to stop others copying.
Tell us the product and we'll send a free campaign image of it within 5 working days.