--- title: "Is it illegal to use AI art?" url: https://canyouuseai.com/questions/is-ai-art-illegal/ verdict: yes-with-care verdict_label: "Yes, with care" category: "Law and rights" published: 2026-10-01 updated: 2026-10-01 author: "Jack Stovell" publisher: "Adapt Progress Evolve Limited" language: en-GB --- # Is it illegal to use AI art? **Verdict: Yes, with care.** Yes, with care, you can use it: AI art is not illegal in itself in the UK, but copying someone else's work is infringement and ownership of purely AI-made images is uncertain. Using AI art is not illegal in the UK in itself. Copyright and platform rules still apply, and that is where people get caught out, so it is worth knowing the ground before a generated image goes on your shop window or your website. Start with the odd bit. Under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the CDPA, the main UK copyright law), the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work that is computer-generated is "taken to be" the person who made the arrangements necessary for its creation. Section 178 defines "computer-generated" as generated by computer in circumstances where there is no human author. So in theory, if you prompt a tool and it produces a picture with no human authorship involved, you might be treated as the author. Protection for that kind of work is shorter. Under section 12(7), copyright in a computer-generated work runs for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made. Ordinary artistic works get 70 years after the author's death. The law treats these works as a separate category. And here is the catch: nobody is sure how s9(3) works in practice. The government's Report on Copyright and AI, published on 18 March 2026 by DSIT, DCMS and the IPO under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, says a service that outputs wholly AI-generated content in response to a prompt may be protected as a computer-generated work. It also points to what looks like a legal contradiction. The originality test is tied to human creativity, yet s9(3) only applies to works with no human author, and without case law it is unclear how the two fit together. It gets less settled still. The "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence" consultation ran from 17 December 2024 to 25 February 2025 and is closed. Most respondents thought works created solely by AI should not be protected, and the government now proposes removing this specific protection for wholly computer-generated works, while copyright would carry on protecting works made with AI assistance. That is a proposal. The law has not changed, and s9(3) is still in force today. If you sell abroad, the same report says it is unlikely that wholly AI-generated outputs get copyright protection in the EU, because originality there is tied to human creativity. Something you might be able to protect at home may not get the same treatment across the Channel. ## How to do it well First, read the terms of the AI tool you are using. Who owns the outputs, and whether you can use them commercially, varies from service to service. It is the quickest way to find out what you are actually allowed to do. Second, do not prompt for a named living artist's specific work, and do not ask the tool to reproduce an existing image or character. That is the fast route to trouble, for the reasons below. Third, check what comes out before you use it commercially. Look for recognisable logos, characters or anyone else's work in the picture. "The computer did it" is not much of a defence if a famous cartoon mouse shows up in your leaflet. Fourth, if you need to own and defend the thing (a logo, say, or a book cover you plan to protect), add your own real creative input and keep records of your process: sketches, edits, drafts, notes on what you changed and why. Protection for wholly AI-made work is uncertain and may be removed, so leaning on it alone is a gamble. Fifth, disclose AI where a platform asks you to. YouTube, for instance, requires creators to disclose realistic AI-generated or meaningfully altered content. Content that is not realistic does not need disclosing. ## Rules and risks The big one is infringement. Under section 16 of the CDPA, copyright is infringed when someone does a restricted act (copying, issuing copies to the public, communicating to the public, or making an adaptation) without a licence, in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it. The IPO's copyright notice on images says courts tend to interpret "substantial part" broadly, and that the vast majority of images on the internet are likely to be protected by copyright. Assuming something is fair game because it is online is a bad bet. The government report spells out where that leaves AI users. If you specifically ask an AI service to reproduce an artist's work and it does, each of you may be liable for copyright infringement: the user and the service. Then there is uploading. If you put a work you did not create into AI photo-editing software, you need the relevant permissions to use it, including permission to make copies. Changing someone else's photo in an editing tool does not make it yours. The IPO notes that some adaptations may be permitted under the exceptions for parody, caricature or pastiche, which is a narrow door and not a general pass. And the grey area around ownership is the heart of it. Section 9(3) is uncertain, the government proposes removing it, and the courts have not ruled on it. If protecting your work matters to you, do not build your plans on a rule that may not last. Lawful to use, careful to rely on. This is general information, not legal advice. ## From the same studio These are our own products (the studio that runs this site makes them). - [How to get AI to](https://howtogetaito.com/): Its free guide to getting AI to create an image covers writing the prompt, iterating, checking the details and exporting at the right size. ## Sources - [legislation.gov.uk: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 9 (authorship of work)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9) - [legislation.gov.uk: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 178 (definitions)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/178) - [legislation.gov.uk: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 12 (duration of copyright)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/12) - [legislation.gov.uk: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 16 (acts restricted by copyright)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/16) - [GOV.UK (DSIT, DCMS, IPO): Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, March 2026](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence) - [GOV.UK (IPO): Copyright and Artificial Intelligence consultation (closed)](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence) - [GOV.UK (IPO): Copyright notice: digital images, photographs and the internet](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet) - [GOV.UK: How long copyright lasts](https://www.gov.uk/copyright/how-long-copyright-lasts) - [YouTube Help: Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491?hl=en-GB) ## Questions people ask ### Who owns an image I made with an AI tool in the UK? Under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the author of a computer-generated work is the person who made the arrangements necessary for its creation. The government's March 2026 report says it is unclear how that applies without case law. Separately, the AI tool's own terms decide what you may do with its outputs, so read them before relying on ownership. ### Has the government changed the law on AI art? No. The Copyright and Artificial Intelligence consultation closed on 25 February 2025, and the March 2026 report proposes removing the specific protection for wholly computer-generated works while keeping protection for works made with AI assistance. That is a proposal. Section 9(3) is still in force, so check GOV.UK for any later change before relying on either position. ### Can I get in trouble for an AI image that looks like an artist's work? You can if the output copies a substantial part of a protected work, which is infringement under section 16 of the 1988 Act, and courts read "substantial part" broadly. The government's report says that if a user specifically asks an AI service to reproduce an artist's work and it does, each of them may be liable. Avoid prompting for a named artist's specific work. ### Do I have to say an image was made with AI? Platforms set their own rules on this. YouTube, for example, requires creators to disclose realistic content that is AI-generated or meaningfully altered, such as a real person appearing to do something they did not. Non-realistic content, like a fantasy scene, does not need the label. Check the rules of wherever you are publishing.