Nobody can promise you full copyright in a purely AI-generated clip. In the US, material generated by AI without human authorship is not protected, while human selection, arrangement and editing can be. UK law has a special rule that may protect computer-generated works, but the government proposed removing it in March 2026. So for a brand, AI video copyright is only part of the answer: what you can do with a commissioned video depends on the contract, the AI tool’s terms, the music and voice licences, and consent from anyone whose likeness appears.
This is the position as we found it in primary sources on 20 September 2026. It is general information, not legal advice, and in several places the law is unsettled. Where it is, we say so.
Who owns AI-generated video in the UK?
The UK is unusual because its statute addresses the question. Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that for a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. Protection lasts 50 years.
There are two complications for video:
- Section 9(3) lists literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. A video is protected as a “film”, whose authors under section 9(2) are the producer and the principal director. As far as we could find, no UK court has decided how either rule applies to video generated by a modern AI model.
- The rule may not survive. After a consultation that opened in December 2024, the government published its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence on 18 March 2026. On computer-generated works it says: “we propose that this specific type of protection should be removed, while copyright should continue to protect works created with AI assistance.” The report gives no date and names no bill. At the time of writing we found no legislation that does this, so section 9(3) remains in force.
The same report dropped the government’s earlier preference for a broad text and data mining exception with an opt-out, and said it will explore options on digital replicas, including whether to introduce a new personality right.
What is the position in the US?
The US position is clearer. The Copyright Office requires human authorship.
- Its registration guidance of March 2023 says applicants have a duty to disclose AI-generated content in a work, and that AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be excluded from the claim.
- Part 2 of its report on copyright and AI, published on 29 January 2025, concludes that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, and that with current technology “prompts do not alone provide sufficient control”.
- The same report says human authors are entitled to copyright in their own work that is perceptible in the output, in the creative selection, coordination or arrangement of material, and in creative modifications of outputs. Using AI as an assisting tool does not remove protection.
- The Office also said the case has not been made for new legislation or a special right for AI-generated content.
The courts agree so far. In Thaler v. Perlmutter the D.C. Circuit held on 18 March 2025 that a work must be authored by a human being, and on 2 March 2026 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. That case involved an image with no claimed human author at all. Where the line falls when a person contributes a lot is still open. The Office refused to register an image made in Midjourney with more than 600 prompts, and the artist challenged that in a federal court in Colorado in 2024. We could not confirm a ruling at the time of writing.
So what is actually protected in a finished video?
A finished commercial is more than its generated shots. Someone wrote a script, chose which takes to use, cut them, designed the sound, graded the picture and added titles and music. Those human contributions are the kind of thing US and UK copyright protects. A raw generated shot, used untouched, is the weak point, mainly under US law.
Your logo and brand name can be protected as trade marks however the footage was made.
What this means when a brand commissions AI video
| Layer | What governs it | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| The finished film | Copyright in the human work, passed on by contract | A written assignment, or a licence that covers ads, all media and the full term |
| Raw generated shots | Possibly no copyright in the US. The contract and the tool’s terms | That the studio hands over whatever rights exist, plus the files |
| The AI tools | Each provider’s terms of service | Which tools and plans were used, and that they allow commercial use |
| Music and voice | Separate licences | That the licence covers paid advertising, your territories and your dates |
| People | Consent, publicity and privacy law | Written consent for any real face or voice, including cloned ones |
| Look-alike outputs | Other people’s copyright and trade marks | A check for protected characters, logos and real people |
The contract assigns whatever rights exist
In the UK, paying for a video does not make you its owner. Government guidance says the first owner of a commissioned work is the person who created it, “unless you otherwise agree it in writing”. Section 90(3) of the 1988 Act adds that an assignment must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor. A well-drafted clause assigns all rights the studio has in the deliverables, whatever those turn out to be, and it also gives you the project files. Possession and a clear contract matter more when copyright is thin.
The tool’s terms govern commercial use
As of September 2026 the major providers take similar but not identical positions:
- OpenAI’s terms of use (we read the version for users outside Europe) say that, to the extent permitted by law, you own the output, and OpenAI assigns you its rights in it “if any”. They also warn that output may not be unique.
- Google’s Gemini API terms, which apply to its video models when used through the API, say “Google won’t claim ownership” of generated content.
- Runway’s terms say it does not claim ownership and does not restrict commercial use, while taking a broad, perpetual licence to your inputs and outputs.
- Luma’s terms allow commercial use only for outputs made under a paid subscription that includes it.
- ElevenLabs limits free users to non-commercial use.
Two points follow. A provider can only give you what it has, and “if any” is the honest part: terms of service cannot create copyright that the law does not grant. And OpenAI’s and Google’s terms both say that you are responsible for the content you generate and how you use it.
Music, voice and likeness
Music needs a licence that names advertising. A cloned voice needs the speaker’s consent, and ElevenLabs’ terms require you to be authorised to use any voice you upload. The UK has no single image right, and people rely on passing off, data protection and advertising rules. CAP Code rule 6.1 urges marketers to get written permission before portraying anyone. In the US, the right of publicity is state law and varies. Our guide to AI spokesperson videos lists what a consent agreement for a digital double should cover. Platform rules are often stricter than the law, as we explain in our guide to labelling AI video.
Outputs that resemble someone else’s work
A model can produce a character, a logo or a face that is too close to a real one. Owning the output under the tool’s terms is not a defence, because the terms give you the provider’s rights and nobody else’s. Whoever publishes the video carries that risk. Never prompt with a protected character’s name, a living artist’s name or a celebrity, and review every frame before delivery.
What to ask a studio to put in writing
- An assignment of all rights in the final videos, effective on payment.
- Delivery of the project files and, for an AI presenter, the character’s reference images.
- A list of the AI tools and plans used, and confirmation that each allows commercial use.
- Music and voice licences that cover paid advertising, with copies.
- Written consent from every real person whose face or voice is used.
- Confirmation that no protected characters or real people were used as prompts or references.
- Who is responsible if a claim arrives.
At Zero Shot, an AI video studio in London, we put these points in the agreement before work starts, whether the job is a single reel or a brand commercial. Our checklist for choosing an AI video production company covers the other questions to ask.
If you want a video with the paperwork in order, send us a short brief.
Questions people ask
Can I copyright a video made entirely with AI?
In the US, not the purely generated parts. The Copyright Office says prompts alone do not provide sufficient control, although human editing, selection and arrangement can be protected. In the UK section 9(3) may give some protection to computer-generated works, but the government has proposed removing it.
Can a competitor copy my AI-generated ad?
Not the whole ad. The script, edit, sound design and music are human work that copyright protects, and a logo or brand name can be protected as a trade mark. A single raw generated shot with no human creative input is the weak point, mainly under US law.
Do AI video tools let me use the output in advertising?
Most paid plans do, but the terms differ. OpenAI's terms say the user owns the output. Runway's say it does not restrict commercial use. Luma allows commercial use only under a paid plan that includes it, and ElevenLabs limits free users to non-commercial use.
Who owns an AI presenter created for my brand?
Whoever the contract says. Agree in writing who owns the character's design files and reference images and whether you can keep using the presenter with another supplier. If the presenter is based on a real person, you also need that person's written consent.