IP rights: Why they matter to creative professionals and what impact might AI have how their creative work is owned, protected and used?

Intellectual Property can mean creations of the mind, including inventions, designs, names and symbols. In the creative industries, IP can mean illustrations, film, music, video games and many other forms of media. It’s not necessarily the same as copyright. That’s one form of IP protection, but there’s also trademarks, patents and registered designs. Copyright is…

Intellectual Property can mean creations of the mind, including inventions, designs, names and symbols. In the creative industries, IP can mean illustrations, film, music, video games and many other forms of media. It’s not necessarily the same as copyright. That’s one form of IP protection, but there’s also trademarks, patents and registered designs. Copyright is what protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Why IP rights matter

Copyright gives creators legal protection over their original work, and how it’s copied, distributed or used. This is important because creative work has commercial value. Without meaningful protection, creators could struggle to control or earn money from their work.

However… creating something doesn’t always mean you personally own every right to it. For example, under UK law, an employer is generally the first copyrighter owner of work created by an employee, unless an agreement says otherwise. Freelancers generally retain copyright in commissioned work unless rights are transferred through an appropriate agreement. There are ups and downs to both scenarios, but the best option is always to get the papers in check and make sure you own as much as possible of the work you create, whilst also respecting the contribution of others and who else is involved with the copyright, including employers.

Legal disputes and ownership

An ongoing relevant legal dispute I can name is the debate around using copyrighted material to train generative AI systems. Many artists, authors, musicians and media organisations have challenged AI companies over the supposed unauthorised use of copyrighted works.

One example is Getty Images v Stability AI, a UK court case about the AI image generator Stable Diffusion. Getty Images claimed that Stability AI had used copyrighted images without permission to train its system. In November 2025, the High Court rejected Getty’s remaining claim about secondary copyright infringement, but found that some Getty Images and iStock trademarks had been used illegally in generated images. However, this decision didn’t answer whether copyrighted material can legally be used to train generative AI without permission.

Can IP rights restrict creativity?

While IP rights are important for protecting people’s work, they can sometimes limit what others are allowed to create. For example, a filmmaker might want to use a popular song in their film, but might not have the money to pay for permission to use it. This can make things harder for smaller creators who don’t have big budgets.

However, copyright doesn’t stop people from taking inspiration from other people’s work. It protects how an idea is shown, rather than the idea itself. Creative Commons also offers licences that let creators share their work while still having some control over how others use it. If anything, copyright protection can actually encourage creativity, because artists know they have some control over how their work is used.

Generative AI and creative ownership

Generative AI has become a big talking point in the creative industries, especially when it comes to copyright and ownership. AI can be useful for coming up with ideas, helping with early designs and speeding up certain tasks. This is especially helpful for smaller creative teams who don’t have the same money or resources as larger companies. However, there are also concerns about how AI systems are trained. Many artists, writers and musicians are unhappy with their work potentially being used without their permission. There’s also the worry that companies could start using AI instead of hiring actual artists, which could affect jobs across the industry.

This raises the question of whether creators should have more control over their work being used to train AI. Some believe AI companies should ask for permission and pay creators, while others argue that strict rules could slow down new technology. Finding a balance between supporting new technology and protecting creative workers is becoming an important issue for the industry.

Personal views and the future

Personally, I believe AI works better as a tool rather than a replacement for human creativity. Every creative project needs a human touch to make it feel complete, and I don’t agree with companies replacing people entirely with AI just to save time or money. In my own field of games development, I can see AI being useful for things like finding bugs in code or helping with early concepts. However, I don’t think it needs to go much further than that. People have been creating amazing games without AI for decades, and I don’t see why that should change now.

Overall, IP rights are an important part of the creative industries, helping people protect their work and earn money from it. As technology like generative AI continues to grow, these rights may need to change with it. It’s important that new technology can develop without leaving human creators behind.