Who Owns AI-Generated Images of Your Product?

In short

• What you own is set by your contract with the studio, not by the AI tool's terms.
• Insist on written assignment of full commercial usage rights with no term limit.
• AI-generated people do not need model releases, which removes a recurring licensing cost.
• Purely machine-generated images may not attract copyright protection in some jurisdictions — this affects your ability to stop copying, not your right to use them.

This comes up in almost every serious enquiry, and the honest answer has three separate layers that get mixed together.

Layer one: your right to use the images

This is the layer that actually matters commercially, and it is decided entirely by your contract with whoever produced the work. Not by the AI model's terms of service, not by the platform — by the piece of paper between you and the studio.

What you want in writing is an unconditional assignment of commercial usage rights, with no expiry date, no channel restriction and no renewal fee. Our own clients receive exactly that. Some suppliers instead grant a licence — often twelve months, often "digital only" — and brands discover the limitation when they want to put the image on packaging or a hoarding.

Layer two: your right to stop others copying

Separate question, and the one where the law is genuinely unsettled. Several jurisdictions take the position that copyright requires human authorship, which puts purely machine-generated output in an uncertain category. India's position on this has not been definitively tested.

The practical consequence is narrow: it may be harder to pursue someone who lifts your generated campaign image than one who lifts a conventional photograph. It does not affect your own freedom to use the image. For most brands this is a theoretical concern rather than a live one, but if a particular visual is central to your brand identity, it is worth discussing with your legal advisor.

Layer three: what is inside the image

The part people forget. Regardless of how an image was made, it must not contain:

• A recognisable real person who has not consented
• Another brand's trademark, logo or trade dress
• A distinctive copyrighted artwork or building where local law protects it
• Anything that makes a claim about your product you cannot substantiate

That last one is the trap for jewellery and beauty in particular. An image implying a gemstone is certified, or that a serum produces a specific result, is an advertising claim. The medium does not change that.

The three clauses worth insisting on

1. Assignment, not licence. Full commercial rights, perpetual, all channels, all territories.
2. Warranty of originality. The studio warrants the delivered work does not knowingly infringe third-party rights, and will replace anything that does.
3. Source files or re-generation. A commitment that variations can be produced later, so you are not locked out of your own campaign look if you change supplier.

Any studio that hesitates at the first of those is telling you something useful.

Reading a rights clause properly

Most disputes come from three words being used loosely. Here is what they mean:

• Assignment — ownership transfers to you. You can use, modify, sub-license and sell the work. This is what you want.
• Exclusive licence — you are the only one who may use it, but ownership stays with the studio. Usually fine, but check the term.
• Non-exclusive licence — you may use it, and so may others. Rare in commissioned product work, and a red flag if it appears.

Also check for territory ("India only" is a genuine restriction if you sell abroad), channel ("digital only" excludes packaging and print), and duration ("twelve months from delivery" means your evergreen campaign has an expiry date).

The disclosure question

Advertising standards around AI-generated imagery are moving, and the direction of travel is toward disclosure where a reasonable viewer might be misled about a material fact. Our practical guidance:

• Presentation is fine. Showing a garment on a generated model to illustrate fit and styling is a presentation choice, in the same category as using a mannequin or an illustration.
• Endorsement is not. A generated person presented as a real customer giving a testimonial is a misrepresentation regardless of how it was produced.
• Product claims remain claims. An image implying a result — skin clarity, a stone's certification, a garment's fabric weight — must be substantiable. The medium is irrelevant to that obligation.

What to keep on file

For any commissioned imagery, keep the signed agreement showing the rights assignment, the delivery record, and your original reference photographs of the product. That last one matters more than people expect: if anyone ever queries whether an image accurately represents your product, the reference photo is your evidence that it does.

A note for brands selling internationally

If you sell into the EU or UK, be aware that disclosure expectations there are currently ahead of India's, and platform policies frequently move faster than law. Building the habit of accurate, non-deceptive imagery now is cheaper than retrofitting a catalogue later.

Frequently asked

Do I own AI-generated images of my product?

You own whatever your agreement with the studio assigns to you. At OldTownKid clients receive full commercial usage rights with no expiry and no per-channel restriction. Always get this in writing — the default position varies enormously between suppliers.

Do I need a model release for an AI-generated model?

No, because there is no identifiable real person to release. This is one of the genuine practical advantages: no licensing term to renew and no re-negotiation when you want to run the campaign for a second year.

Can I trademark or copyright the images?

Copyright in purely machine-generated output is unsettled in several jurisdictions, and protection may be weaker than for a conventional photograph. This limits your ability to stop others copying the image; it does not limit your own commercial use of it.