Who owns the copyright in AI-generated work in the UK?
It depends on human input. AI-assisted work can be protected as normal, while wholly AI-generated work relies on a narrower rule that may be removed.
Two kinds of AI work, two different answers
UK copyright law treats work differently depending on how much a person contributed to it.
AI-assisted work: A designer who sketches a concept, generates options, then selects, edits, composites and refines them is using AI as a tool. Copyright can protect the result in the normal way. The UK government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, published on 18 March 2026, states that copyright should continue to protect works created with AI assistance.
Wholly AI-generated work: Where a tool produces an output with no human author, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 currently treats the author as the person who made the arrangements necessary for its creation. That protection lasts 50 years.
The difficulty is the space in between. Whether a particular AI-assisted piece has enough human creative input to be protected depends on the facts, and UK courts have not yet settled where the line falls. A single prompt typed into an image tool sits at one end. A video editor who storyboards, generates shots, then cuts, grades and scores the sequence sits at the other. Most agency work falls somewhere along that line.
The law is moving
The same March 2026 report proposes removing section 9(3) protection for wholly computer-generated works. No legislation has been introduced yet, so the current rule still applies, but you should not build long-term client promises on it. If the proposal goes ahead, purely machine-made outputs may have no copyright protection at all, which would leave them open for anyone to reuse.
Tool terms are part of the picture
Copyright law is only one layer. AI tool terms of service differ on who owns outputs and what rights the provider keeps. Some assign outputs to the user. Others grant a licence, keep rights over inputs or outputs, or limit commercial use on certain plans. Before a tool is used on client work, someone in your agency should read those terms and record what they say.
What this means for your client promises
Many agency contracts promise the client full and exclusive ownership of everything delivered. That promise is easy to make and hard to keep where AI is involved.
Don't warrant what you cannot prove: If a logo concept came straight from an image generator with light edits, you may not be able to show that you hold copyright to assign. Promise only what you can stand behind.
Keep a record of human input: Save sketches, briefs, prompt iterations, edit histories and version files. If ownership is ever challenged, this evidence shows the creative choices your team made.
Keep AI away from core brand assets: For logos, characters, mascots and straplines, where exclusivity matters most, keep the creative heart of the work human-led and use AI for exploration only.
Match the promise to the deliverable: Social media variations or internal mood boards carry less ownership risk than a brand identity the client will build a business on.
Your contract wording should reflect all of this, and what agency contracts should say about AI covers the clauses in detail. For campaign imagery specifically, see whether AI-generated images are safe for client work.
A practical position for now
Treat AI-assisted work with substantial human direction as likely to be protectable, treat lightly edited outputs as uncertain, and tell clients plainly which is which. UK copyright law on AI-generated and AI-assisted work is unsettled, and this page is general guidance, so take advice on your own contracts and deliverables.
More questions