Direct answer: Whether an AI-generated image can be used commercially is not just about the tool's terms. It depends on human intellectual input, the intended use, labelling, any real people/trademarks/client material involved, and whether the vendor stands behind the rights. Mood images and brochure illustrations can work; product photos, customer cases and factory scenes must not be faked with AI.
This guide is for marketing/brand, e-commerce, legal, procurement and design/website vendors at companies using AI-generated images on websites, brochures, ads and social media. It covers copyright, labelling, commercial claims and contract acceptance. Information is current to 31 October 2026. It is public regulation, case law and project method, not legal advice; ownership, infringement, platform rules and contractual liability depend on the law, the facts and counsel.
AI images may or may not be protected—human input matters. Usable does not mean you can pass it off as a real photo; label AI images and clear real people/trademarks/client material. "The vendor says you own it" is not enough: get warranties, indemnities and evidence.
Separate three things: tool, work, licence
A tool can generate an image, but that does not automatically make the output a protected work; protection does not automatically mean you can commercialise it. Check human input, ownership terms, input material and intended use.
Many companies treat "we bought a Midjourney/Stable Diffusion subscription" or "the vendor says it is commercial" as copyright safety. These are three different questions: first, whether the tool's terms allow you to use/commercialise the output; second, whether the output is a "work" under copyright law and who owns it; third, whether the image contains someone else's portrait, trademark, artwork or client material. Tool terms only answer the first. In the 2023 Beijing Internet Court "AI text-to-image" case, the court found that the plaintiff's prompts, parameters and final selection reflected personal expression, the image was a work of fine art and the plaintiff owned copyright—but that was a case-specific judgment, and the court expressly said it cannot be generalised.
| Layer | What it resolves | What it does not mean | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tool terms | Whether the platform allows use/commercial output | Does not prove non-infringement or your ownership | Terms snapshot/account/subscription |
| Work/ownership | Whether it is original and who owns it | Does not prove every element is lawful | Prompts/parameters/edits/contract |
| Input material | Whether reference images/trademarks/people/client material are usable | "AI-generated" is not a defence | Authorisation/source/replacement log |
| Output use | Website/brochure/ad/e-commerce use | Does not permit passing off as a real photo/case | Use list/labels/review |
The three-layer split is editorial; copyright protection, infringement and contractual liability follow the Copyright Law, the facts and counsel.
Do AI images have copyright? It depends on human input
Possibly, possibly not. The key is whether prompts, parameters, composition, selection and editing reflect personal expression; mechanical output with a unique result and no human choice may not be a work.
The Copyright Law requires a work to be original, expressed in a certain form and an intellectual achievement in literature/art/science. In the Beijing Internet Court "AI text-to-image" case, the court found that the plaintiff designed the character presentation, chose prompts, set parameters, iterated and selected the final image, reflecting intellectual input and personal expression; the image was a work of fine art. The AI model itself cannot be the author, and the plaintiff was the author. The court also stressed that whether AI-generated images reflect personal expression is case-specific and cannot be generalised. The business implication is not "AI images always have copyright" but: the more you can evidence human planning, choices, edits and approval, the stronger the rights basis; a one-click, unedited output has a weaker basis.
| Creation mode | Human input | Rights/evidence implication |
|---|---|---|
| One-click generation | One generic prompt, no selection/editing | Weak rights basis; more like mechanical output |
| AI + human direction/editing | Composition, prompts, parameters, iteration, compositing | More likely to reflect personal expression; keep process evidence |
| AI reference + real photo/hand drawing | AI only for sketches/reference; final work by human | Clearer rights in the final work; AI image not the deliverable |
| Commissioned design firm | Vendor generates with AI and delivers | Contract ownership/warranty; still depends on human input and material |
Creation modes and rights are editorial; originality, authorship and ownership follow the Copyright Law and the Beijing Internet Court AI image case; individual cases depend on the court and counsel.
Where can AI images be used—and where not?
Mood images, illustrations, backgrounds and icons can work; product photos, factory scenes, customer cases, certification/testing and real people must not be faked. Product appearance/performance images should be visibly marked as renderings.
The risk is not the word "AI" but the use. Website banners, brochure illustrations, social images, icons and textures are usually lower risk; product photos, equipment, factory shots, customer cases and testing/certification scenes must not be faked with AI, as that can mislead and damage trust. In B2B sectors such as medical devices, chemicals and equipment, customers may check appearance, interfaces, materials, labels and nameplates; over-"beautifying" with AI creates acceptance/contract risk. Real people raise portrait rights; customer logos, trademarks, famous IP and artwork elements need clearance.
| Use | AI allowed? | Condition | Evidence/label |
|---|---|---|---|
| Website mood/background | Yes | No real product/person/client | Source record; label if needed |
| Brochure illustration/cover | Yes | Not passed off as photography/case; clear fonts/elements | Design process, licence, label |
| Product rendering | Conditional | Mark as rendering/illustration; not a real photo | "Rendering" label, parameter source |
| Product photo/nameplate | Not advised | Must be real; AI must not alter key markings | Original/photo record |
| Factory/line/customer case | No passing off | Use real photos; AI retouching must not change facts | Shooting/client authorisation |
| Certification/testing | No | Certificates/reports must be real and verifiable | Original/official lookup |
| Real person/celebrity | Caution | Person's consent; avoid identifiable real people | Portrait consent/synthetic label |
Use judgements are editorial; false/misleading advertising follows the Advertising Law; real-person images involve Civil Code personality rights.
Must AI images be labelled—and how?
AI-generated/synthesised content needs explicit and implicit labels under the Labelling Measures; websites/brochures/ads should also distinguish real photos, renderings and illustrations. Do not present AI images as factual evidence.
The Measures for Labelling AI-Generated Synthetic Content, effective 1 September 2025, require explicit labels (perceivable by users) and implicit labels (file metadata) for AI-generated text, images, audio, video and virtual scenes, and prohibit deleting, altering or concealing them. For companies, using AI images on websites/brochures/ads also requires factual clarity: is this a rendering, an illustration or a real photo? On product, case and certification pages, a generic "for reference only" does not cure material differences; platform/ad rules may add requirements.
| Medium | How to label | Evidence | Common failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Website image | "AI-generated/rendering" label or alt/caption | Page screenshot/source | Used as a real photo |
| Brochure/print | Caption/colophon; keep file metadata | Prepress file/proof | Only "for reference" |
| Ads/social | Platform AI declaration + on-image notice | Publishing record | Pretending real scene |
| Product rendering | "Rendering/illustration", key differences noted | Parameters/render log | Implying a real photo |
| Export/re-sharing | Keep explicit + implicit labels | File inspection | Cropping/removing marks |
Labelling follows the Measures for Labelling AI-Generated Synthetic Content; exact position/style/platform rules follow the original text and platform requirements; no display or immunity is promised.
What should the vendor contract say?
Cover output ownership, input-material licences, tool/model terms, third-party infringement warranties and indemnity, labelling responsibility, deliverables and post-termination use. "You own the copyright" alone is not enough.
Design firms and website vendors often deliver AI-assisted images, but contracts frequently say only "source files delivered, copyright belongs to the client". What matters: ownership/licence scope (website, brochure, ads, e-commerce, overseas, modifications), input material (reference images, fonts, trademarks, people, client material), tools/models and terms, whether the vendor may reuse/sublicense, who labels AI content, cooperation/indemnity for complaints, deliverables (source files, process records, authorisation proof) and deletion/cessation after termination. A vendor "warranty" needs liability behind it; otherwise it is just a polite sentence.
| Clause | What to write | Evidence | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Copyright/licence ownership; scope/term/territory | Contract/schedule | Only "copyright belongs to client" |
| Input material | Reference images/fonts/trademarks/people/client material cleared | Licence/source list | "Found online" |
| Tool/model | Tool name/version/terms; commercial use allowed | Terms snapshot | Tool not disclosed |
| Reuse/sublicence | Whether vendor may reuse, sublicense or train | Restriction clause | Same image sold to competitors |
| Labelling | Who adds explicit/implicit labels; retained on export | Sample/process | Labels removed before delivery |
| Infringement/indemnity | Notice, takedown, defence, indemnity, insurance (if any) | Contract/SOP | All liability pushed to client |
| Delivery/termination | Source files, process records, authorisation; cease/delete after termination | Delivery list | JPG only |
The contract list is editorial and not a substitute for legal review; ownership, indemnity and platform liability depend on the contract, law and project.
What evidence should you keep?
Keep prompts, parameters/seed, model/version, generation date, human edits, source-material licences, tool-terms snapshots and final approval. Without process evidence, human input and lawful sources are hard to prove.
An AI image evidence chain should answer four questions: who made it, how, with what material, and who approved it. Build an "AI image file" per project: prompts/negative prompts, parameters/seed, model/version, generation date, candidate images, human edits (PS/Illustrator layers/versions), reference material and licences, tool terms/subscription record, final placement and labelling. Deliver source files + process records + authorisation together; keep them internally at least until the image stops being used. If a complaint arrives, you can locate, take down, replace and explain quickly.
| Evidence | What to keep | Where | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generation record | Prompts, parameters, seed, model/version, date | Project file | Only the final image |
| Human edits | Layers/versions/edit notes/approver | Design source | Cannot prove human edits |
| Material licences | Reference images, fonts, trademarks, people, client material | Licence folder | Unknown source |
| Tool terms | Commercial licence/output rights/restrictions | Terms snapshot | Relying on memory |
| Use record | Where used, when live, labelling | CMS/version log | Cannot find old versions |
| Complaint handling | Notice, takedown, replacement, communication | Legal/support | Deleting everything |
The evidence list is editorial; personal information, client material and contracts follow company policy, privacy policy and counsel.
What if an AI image is accused of infringement?
Stop using/take down the disputed image, preserve evidence, check the complainant's rights and the image's source; replace it, involve the vendor/lawyer if needed. Do not delete evidence first or argue publicly.
AI image complaints may come from photographers/illustrators (style/element similarity), brands (trademarks/product appearance), real people (portrait) or clients (leaked material). Sequence: pause/takedown → preserve page, source files, generation records, licences and communications → check the complainant's rights and similarities → ask the vendor for source/authorisation → assess replacement/settlement/defence → review procurement and review processes. Contractual indemnity does not replace prompt mitigation; public responses should be careful to avoid secondary infringement/reputation risk.
| Stage | Action | Evidence | Do not |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–24h | Pause/takedown; notify internally | Page snapshot/time | Keep running the ad |
| 1–3 days | Preserve source/generation/licence; check complaint | Evidence pack | Delete evidence |
| 3–7 days | Vendor explanation; replace/settle/legal review | Communication/contract | Public argument |
| Review | Update procurement/review/labelling/training | Review record | Fix only this image |
The handling flow is editorial; infringement, damages and platform appeals depend on the law, contract and counsel.
Launch acceptance checklist
Accept eight items: use, rights chain, human input, material clearance, labelling, claims, contract, evidence/response. Each needs an owner and evidence—not just "the image looks good".
The checklist can be shared by marketing, design, legal, procurement and website/brochure vendors. The pass standard is not "the vendor says it is commercial" but that the use matches, rights can be explained, material can be verified, labels are in place, claims are not misleading, the contract has liability and evidence is traceable.
| Check | Pass standard | Evidence | If failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use | Mood/illustration allowed; photos/cases/certification not faked | Use list | Replace/rewrite |
| Rights chain | Output ownership/licence scope written | Contract/terms | Add contract/stop use |
| Human input | Prompts/parameters/edits/approval traceable | Process file | Add records/redo |
| Material clearance | Reference/fonts/trademarks/people/client material licensed | Licence list | Replace/obtain |
| Labelling | Explicit/implicit labels; rendering vs photo clear | Page/file | Add labels/takedown |
| Claims | Not false/absolute; not presented as real evidence | Copy review | Revise/stop |
| Contract | Warranty/indemnity/reuse/termination written | Contract/SOP | Add clauses/change vendor |
| Evidence/response | Evidence pack + complaint process | File/drill | Add process/training |
The acceptance checklist is editorial; copyright, labelling, advertising, portrait and contract requirements depend on regulations, platform rules, contract and counsel.
Who should read this, who should not, and what decision does it support?
It fits marketing and design teams using AI images on websites, brochures and ads. It does not fit teams faking product photos, customer cases or certification scenes, or expecting a tool subscription to solve copyright.
Who should read: marketing/brand, e-commerce, legal, procurement and design/website vendors; teams using AI for website banners, brochure illustrations, product renderings or social images; anyone deciding "can we use it, who owns it, how to label it, what the contract says, what to do if complained". Who should not: projects faking real photos/customer cases/factories/certification; teams assuming a tool subscription means "no copyright problem"; projects expecting one checklist to replace legal advice. Decisions supported: use judgement, rights chain, human-input evidence, material clearance, labelling/claims, vendor contract, evidence pack and complaint response.
Lingyi Information is a website and enterprise AI project services company, not a law firm, copyright agent or platform. This article does not replace copyright, portrait, advertising or contract advice. Scope is confirmed case by case; no copyright registration, platform approval, traffic or conversion is promised.
FAQ
Do AI-generated images have copyright?
Possibly, not necessarily. It depends on whether prompts, parameters, composition, selection and editing reflect personal expression. The 2023 Beijing Internet Court case found a specific image was a work of fine art and the user owned copyright, but the court stressed case-by-case analysis. One-click, unedited output has a weaker basis.
Who owns images generated with Midjourney/Stable Diffusion?
Tool terms usually address whether the platform allows use/commercial output, not necessarily ownership or infringement liability. Ownership depends on human input, commission/employment contracts and platform terms; a contract can assign output rights to the company, but cannot replace the originality test or guarantee no third-party infringement.
Can AI images be used as product photos or customer cases?
Not advisable and not as a disguise. Product appearance, nameplates, interfaces, factory scenes, customer cases and certification/testing are checked by customers; faking them can mislead. Product renderings should be clearly marked "rendering/illustration" with key differences explained.
Must websites/brochures label AI images?
AI-generated/synthesised content needs explicit and implicit labels under the Labelling Measures; also distinguish real photos, renderings and illustrations. Confirm exact position/style/platform rules in the original text; do not delete, alter or conceal labels.
Is "the vendor says you own the copyright" enough?
No. The contract should cover output ownership/licence scope, input-material licences, tool/model terms, reuse/sublicence limits, labelling responsibility, indemnity, deliverables and post-termination cessation/deletion. Also keep prompts, parameters, edit records and licence proof; a single sentence is hard to enforce.
What if an AI image is accused of infringement?
Pause/takedown the disputed image, preserve the page, source files, generation records, licences and communications; check the complainant's rights and similarities; ask the vendor for source; assess replacement/settlement/legal defence; then review procurement, review and labelling. Do not delete evidence or argue publicly first.
Bottom line
For AI images on a company website or brochure, start with use: mood/illustration can work, but photos/cases/certification must not be faked. Rights depend on human input; commercial use depends on material, labelling and contract. Keep prompts, parameters, edits, licences and terms—and turn the vendor's "you own it" into warranties, indemnity and deliverables.
Method and limits
This article is public regulation, case law and project method, not a compliance certification or legal advice for any company, image, tool, platform or contract. It uses no unpublished client images, authorisations or contracts. The use table, contract list and acceptance checklist are editorial; copyright, infringement, labelling, advertising, portrait and contract liability depend on current law, the facts, platform rules and counsel.
Sources
Information is current to 31 October 2026; each official/primary page governs its own scope, version and clauses.
- Copyright Law of the PRC (2020 amendment, effective 1 June 2021): National Copyright Administration. Definition of works, authors, rights, licensing/assignment and liability.
- Beijing Internet Court, AI text-to-image copyright case (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279: Beijing Internet Court. Work status, authorship/ownership, AI labelling and damages; a case-specific first-instance judgment, not a general rule.
- Measures for Labelling AI-Generated Synthetic Content (effective 1 September 2025): CAC. Explicit/implicit labels, export/dissemination and the prohibition on deleting/altering labels.
- Advertising Law of the PRC (2021 amendment): SAMR. Advertising must be true, verifiable and not false/misleading or use fabricated proof.
- Civil Code of the PRC, Book on Personality Rights: NPC. Portrait rights, voice interests and the prohibition on making/using/publishing without consent.