Generative AI in Marketing: Mitigating Copyright Risks in 2025

Generative AI promises dramatic cost savings and speed for marketing, design, and copy — but the shortcut from prompt to public-facing asset can land a company in a copyright courtroom, saddle it with crippling legal bills, or leave it unable to protect the very assets it thought it owned.

Background / Overview​

In 2025 the legal landscape around generative AI and intellectual property hardened fast. Large studios have filed high-profile suits against image-generation platforms alleging near-verbatim reproduction of copyrighted characters and art, and authors have won class-certification orders against model builders accused of using millions of pirated books to train large language models. At the same time, regulators and the U.S. Copyright Office clarified that human authorship matters for copyright protection of AI outputs — but left open thorny questions about training data, indemnities, and what companies can rely on when they outsource creative work to a generative model. (cnbc.com, news.bloomberglaw.com)
Those headlines matter for every business that uses generative AI in a commercial setting — from sole proprietors generating a logo for a new product, to marketing teams using on-demand image generators for ad creative, to enterprise developers embedding image or text model outputs directly into customer-facing software. Legal exposure can arrive in three distinct ways: (1) direct claims by copyright owners that your output is an infringing derivative or copy; (2) secondary or contributory claims against platforms and vendors that provided the tools; and (3) loss of intellectual property protection for outputs created without sufficient human authorship to qualify for copyright. Recent litigation and agency guidance show all three are live risks. (wired.com, copyright.gov)

---

What’s changed legally — the hard facts​

Copyright owners are suing platform vendors and users​

Major entertainment companies — including Disney and Universal — filed suit against an image-generation company in mid‑2025, alleging the model reproduces characters and artwork closely enough to constitute direct and secondary infringement. The studios argued the image generator’s outputs include copyrighted characters from widely known franchises, that the vendor trained its systems using copyrighted works, and that the platform promoted outputs that incorporate that copyrighted material. Those claims show plaintiffs are willing to litigate both on the basis of model training and the commercial outputs the models produce. (cnbc.com)
At the same time, authors scored a major procedural win against an LLM developer when a federal judge certified a class of authors whose books were allegedly downloaded from pirate sites and used to build a “central library” for model training. The certification order highlighted how statutory damages — up to $150,000 per willfully infringed work under Title 17 — can multiply into astronomical exposure when millions of works are implicated. Legal commentators and press reporting put potential damages in the billions or even trillions in hypothetical worst‑case math; courts have so far been cautious, but the risk is unmistakable. (news.bloomberglaw.com, jurist.org)

The Copyright Office and federal courts: human authorship still matters​

The U.S. Copyright Office’s reports and a series of federal decisions in early 2025 confirmed a simple rule: purely machine‑generated works with no discernible human authorship are not copyrightable. Conversely, works that include meaningful human creative input — selection, arrangement, editing, or other expressive choices — can qualify. Appellate courts have reinforced the human‑authorship requirement in cases rejecting registrations that listed an AI as the author. That leaves businesses with a twofold problem: you may not be able to register a purely AI‑generated image as your copyrightable asset; and even when you can, the specter of underlying training‑data infringement remains unresolved. (reuters.com, law.justia.com)

Vendors’ terms and indemnities are partial and conditional​

Platform terms are inconsistent. Some image and text generator vendors disclaim responsibility and require users to indemnify them; others (or particular enterprise tiers) offer indemnity but with many carve‑outs. Those indemnities frequently exclude uses where the customer “knew or should have known” the output was infringing, where the customer disabled safety features, or when outputs were combined with third‑party services. Even where a vendor promises to defend a customer, the indemnity typically triggers only after a drawn‑out process in which the vendor can argue that conditions weren’t met. In practice, indemnities are not a guaranteed shield against litigation, discovery costs, or reputational harm. (openai.com, cf.bing.com)

---

Why businesses are uniquely exposed​

1) Visible, commercial use attracts enforcement​

Large copyright owners will often focus enforcement on visible commercial exploitation — logos on vans, ad campaigns, product labels, or e‑commerce listings. When an AI‑generated asset is used publicly and commercially, the plaintiff’s leverage increases: you not only used their work, you profited from it in the market. Damages calculations then may include actual profits, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. Legal costs alone — even on modest claims — can be crippling compared with the licensing cost you would have paid at the outset. (cnbc.com)

2) You can’t reliably rely on “the model made it”​

Vendors and platforms often assert their users are the primary actors responsible for output. But plaintiffs pursue secondary liability theories against platforms when they believe a model encouraged or enabled widespread infringement (for example by failing to block infringing prompts or surfacing infringing outputs in public galleries). This bifurcated enforcement strategy means both the user and the vendor may be pulled into litigation. The obvious corollary: vendor disclaimers in a TOS do not make you litigation‑proof. (cnbc.com)

3) You may not be able to own what you generate​

If an image or slogan is produced entirely by an AI with minimal human creative contribution, the U.S. Copyright Office and courts have ruled such material is ineligible for copyright registration; that weakens your ability to stop third parties from copying the same asset. Trademark protection remains an option for logos and slogans once they function as a brand identifier, but trademarks require distinctiveness and commercial use over time — and they don’t stop a competitor from using the same image in many contexts until registration or enforcement succeeds. (copyright.gov, itsartlaw.org)

---

Recent cases and decisions every business should know​

Disney & Universal v. Midjourney (June 2025) — image generation under fire​

Major studios filed a complaint against an image generator alleging both direct reproduction and secondary facilitation of infringement. The studios included numerous examples of generative outputs that resembled famous characters and argued the platform had the ability to block infringing prompts and did not do so. The complaint illustrates two crucial plaintiff strategies: (a) showing model outputs that are near‑verbatim or substantially similar to copyrighted characters, and (b) alleging negligence or inducement by the platform. Expect similar suits to follow where popular IP is implicated. (cnbc.com)

Authors’ class action certified against Anthropic (July 2025) — training data liability​

A federal judge certified a class of authors alleging that an LLM developer downloaded millions of books from pirate repositories (LibGen and PiLiMi) to build training corpora. The order emphasized the scale of the downloads and noted the statutory structure of damages that can escalate quickly. This certification demonstrates how model training practices — not just outputs — are fertile ground for suits and potential large damages. (news.bloomberglaw.com, jurist.org)

Appellate rulings and agency guidance — human authorship confirmed​

Appellate decisions and the U.S. Copyright Office’s multi‑part report concluded that works without the requisite human creative spark are ineligible for copyright protection, while AI‑assisted works remain protectable to the extent humans made original contributions. Thaler v. Perlmutter and Copyright Office guidance are now central authorities for counsel evaluating whether an output is registrable or defensible. Businesses cannot assume automatic copyright in an AI image simply because they paid for or commissioned the generation. (law.justia.com, copyright.gov)

---

Practical legal and operational risks for businesses​

• Cease‑and‑desist and brand disruption: Even a demand letter to stop using a logo or slogan can force a business to rebrand overnight, erasing months of investment in signage, packaging, and paid media.
• Attorney fees and discovery: Small to medium businesses rarely have the war chest to absorb discovery costs, expert reports, and multi‑month litigation, even when ultimate damages are modest.
• Indemnity uncertainty: Vendor indemnities come with conditional exclusions that may render them ineffective in real disputes; they rarely cover reputational damage, and vendors can litigate the scope.
• No copyright registration = weaker enforcement: If the asset is purely AI‑generated, you may not be able to register copyright, hampering enforcement against third‑party copiers.
• Operational compliance and record‑keeping: Without clear documentation of human creative steps, it will be difficult to show the required human authorship later if challenged. (copyright.gov)

---

What businesses should do now — pragmatic risk mitigation​

1) Adopt a written, lawyer‑reviewed AI usage policy​

A formal policy that governs who can use generative AI tools, for which purposes, and which safety and vetting steps are mandatory will materially reduce risk. The policy should require:

• pre‑publication human review for any public or commercial asset;
• explicit documentation of human creative contributions (prompts, edits, selections);
• prohibitions on using AI to generate known trademarked or character IP without a license;
• designated approvals from legal/brand for logos, slogans, and mascots.

Documenting the creative process — who prompted what, who edited the output, and why the final choice was made — creates an evidentiary record that can support claims of human authorship and show good‑faith steps to avoid infringement.

2) Require human‑in‑the‑loop review before release​

Always have a trained human reviewer inspect any generative output before public use. That reviewer should:

• run an image reverse search (e.g., Google Image Search) to detect obvious duplicates or near‑identical matches;
• search textual outputs (quote‑search) to detect slogan copying;
• consult brand style guides and counsel before adopting logos or mascots.

Human review reduces the “should have known” argument vendors might use to deny indemnity and limits downstream exposure.

3) Vet vendors and read the fine print​

Vendor TOS vary widely. Key terms to look for include:

• indemnity scope and exclusions (read them carefully);
• license grants for generated content and whether the vendor claims any rights to your prompts/creations;
• commercial‑use permission (some consumer tiers limit commercial use);
• whether the vendor trains on user content or promises not to.

If a vendor offers indemnity, have counsel assess the carve‑outs and whether the indemnity covers defense costs, settlement, and who controls the defense. Enterprise contracts should negotiate narrower exclusions and clearer defense obligations. (openai.com, cf.bing.com)

4) Prefer trademarks for brand assets when appropriate​

While copyright in AI‑only work may be unavailable, trademarks can protect logos and slogans as indicators of origin once they acquire distinctiveness through use. Consider seeking trademark protection for important brand identifiers generated with AI — but remember trademark protection assesses consumer association and distinctiveness, not creative authorship. Document commercial use and consumer recognition to support registration. (itsartlaw.org)

5) Maintain operational controls and retention policies​

Keep prompts, generation logs, and revision histories under corporate control and retention rules. If litigation arises, those artifacts can be crucial to demonstrate human oversight and limit vendor liability arguments. Conversely, they can become discoverable evidence, so coordinate with legal counsel about retention and privilege where appropriate.

---

A practical checklist for publishing AI‑created public assets​

• Does the asset go public or commercial? If yes, proceed to step 2.
• Run an image reverse search / text quote search for near‑matches.
• Document the prompt, model, vendor, generation timestamp, and all human edits.
• Obtain sign‑off from brand and legal if the asset is a logo, slogan, or advert.
• Ensure vendor TOS allow commercial use and review indemnity terms for exclusions.
• If needed, negotiate contractual warranties or indemnities in vendor agreements.
• Consider filing a trademark application if the asset will function as a brand identifier.
• Keep an archive of the decision chain and the human creative inputs.

Following this workflow will not remove legal risk entirely, but it materially reduces the chance of catastrophic exposure and, importantly, creates the record businesses need to defend their choices. (copyright.gov, openai.com)

---

Dealing with a takedown or cease‑and‑desist​

• Pause new use immediately of the challenged asset to limit further harm.
• Preserve all evidence (prompts, model outputs, edits, approvals) — these will be discoverable and useful for defense.
• Engage counsel early — even to respond to a simple demand letter — because early negotiations often avoid full suits.
• Ask the plaintiff for specifics (what works are implicated, how they determine substantial similarity) and request time to investigate.
• Notify your vendor if indemnity or contractual defense obligations may apply, but do not assume they will ultimately shield you from fees or reputational harm.

Legal professionals note that many initial disputes are resolved by cease‑and‑desist plus a takedown or rebranding; the most damaging cases are those where plaintiffs seek statutory damages or attorney fees after showing willful conduct. Quick, documented human review that shows good faith is often decisive in avoiding heavy sanctions. (news.bloomberglaw.com)

---

What to watch next — likely legal flashpoints​

• Training‑data litigation will intensify: plaintiffs will keep pressing claims about unauthorized use of copyrighted works for model training. Class actions or consolidated suits could magnify damages if serialized downloads are proven. (news.bloomberglaw.com)
• Platform discovery fights: cases will test whether platforms must proactively block infringing prompts or outputs and how far platforms must go to police user prompts. (cnbc.com)
• Regulatory and agency guidance: the Copyright Office and other agencies will continue to produce guidance — expect Part 3 of the Copyright Office’s AI reports to address training‑data questions more directly. Businesses should monitor guidance and adapt policies accordingly. (copyright.gov)
• Contract innovations: expect more negotiated enterprise terms that carve out clearer indemnities, warranties about training data provenance, and explicit license grants for generated content.

---

Final analysis — strengths, gaps, and risk calculus​

Generative AI is a powerful productivity tool with real strengths: rapid iteration, lower creative cost, and scale. For many routine marketing tasks — A/B testing hooks, drafting internal copy, generating concept art for ideation — AI delivers measurable ROI.
But the legal gaps are consequential and systemic. Copyright law as presently interpreted emphasizes human authorship for protection and allows for steep statutory damages where willful infringing conduct is shown. Vendor indemnities are an imperfect backstop: often conditional, frequently circumscribed, and sometimes illusory in practice. Litigation can target both model training and outputs, meaning companies that outsource creative work are vulnerable at multiple points. (reuters.com, openai.com)
For businesses, the choice isn’t binary. The rational path is pragmatic: embrace generative AI where it increases speed and lowers cost — but couple it with policy, human oversight, vendor diligence, and records that demonstrate human authorship and good‑faith compliance. That approach will not eliminate risk, but it will convert speculative exposure into manageable, documented practices that stand up under scrutiny.
Generative AI can be an enormous competitive asset — but in 2025 it is equally a potential legal minefield. Reasoned governance, careful vendor selection, and human creativity in the loop are the three defenses that separate companies that profit from AI from those that pay the price. (copyright.gov)

---

Quick action plan (for immediate implementation)​

• Draft and publish an internal "AI Usage & Approval" policy this week.
• Require legal/brand sign‑off for any AI asset that will be used publicly or commercially.
• Contract or renegotiate enterprise AI vendor terms to tighten indemnities and warranties.
• Train your marketing/design teams on reverse image searching and prompt documentation.
• Archive prompts, timestamps, and edit histories for all AI‑assisted creative work.

These steps convert legal risk into operational hygiene — a necessary baseline for any company that intends to use generative AI in the public square. (openai.com, cf.bing.com)
Conclusion
Generative AI isn’t just a technology shift; it’s a change to the risk profile of doing business. The legal system is catching up quickly — recent high‑stakes litigation and agency guidance have already redefined what companies must do to use AI responsibly. Businesses that pair AI’s capabilities with deliberate governance, documented human authorship, and careful vendor contracting will survive and thrive. Those that try to save a few dollars by publishing unvetted, AI‑only creative assets risk expensive legal lessons they can ill afford. (cnbc.com, news.bloomberglaw.com)

---

Source: theregister.com GenAI is a lawsuit waiting to happen to your business