AI video copyright: who really owns a video made with AI?

You have commissioned an ad made with AI, it is ready to go live, and someone in the meeting asks: who owns this? This guide to AI video copyright answers that for Italy and Europe, as of October 2026: what the law says, what the tools' terms grant you and what belongs in your production contract.

The short version: a video made with AI can be protected, but only the part that comes from human creative choices. Everything else is settled by contracts, which matter more here than on a traditional shoot. What follows is general information, not legal advice.

What Italian law says after Law 132/2025

Law no. 132 of 23 September 2025, Italy’s artificial intelligence law, came into force on 10 October 2025. Its Article 25 amends Article 1 of the Italian Copyright Act (Law 633/1941), which in its consolidated text now reads, in our translation:

Protected under this law are creative works of the human intellect [...] even where created with the aid of artificial intelligence tools, provided they are the result of the author’s intellectual work.

Two words do all the work: “human” and “intellectual work”. Using AI as a tool does not remove protection, but on its own it creates none, and each case is judged on its facts.

In production terms: a clip generated from a single prompt and published as is has weak protection. A film where a person wrote the script, chose the look, directed the shots, selected the takes and handled edit and grade carries traces of documented human decisions. That is where copyright lives.

Europe and the US: a human author comes first

The European standard

The EU has no specific rule on AI outputs. The Court of Justice’s originality test applies: protection goes to the author’s own intellectual creation, reflecting their personality through “free and creative choices”. In Painer (C-145/10), decided on 1 December 2011, those choices were the background, pose, lighting, framing, angle and atmosphere of a portrait.

For an AI video it is a useful test: if you can say who decided the shots, light, casting and edit, you have an author. If the answer is “the model”, you do not.

Following a non-binding European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2026, the Commission says it is preparing a review of the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

The US benchmark

Outside the EU, the benchmark is the US Copyright Office report on copyrightability of January 2025. Its conclusion: with current technology, prompts alone do not give enough control over the result. What can be protected is human material perceptible in the output, the creative selection and arrangement of outputs, and creative modifications.

What the tools say in their terms

Does the model provider keep anything? As of October 2026, the main ones say no, with differences that matter.

• OpenAI. Its EU terms of use, updated on 16 January 2026, say you own the output and OpenAI assigns you whatever rights it has, “if any”. They also warn that output may not be unique.
• Google. Its terms of service, effective 30 July 2026, say Google will not claim ownership of original content you generate.
• Runway. Its terms, updated on 15 September 2026, claim no ownership of inputs or outputs and do not restrict commercial use, but you grant Runway a perpetual licence and inputs and outputs may be used to train its models.
• Higgsfield. Its help centre confirms it claims no ownership of inputs or outputs and does not tie commercial use to a plan. IP indemnity comes only with the Enterprise plan. Under the terms in force since 27 August 2026, content also helps improve its models; enterprise agreements can exclude this.

The key words are “if any”. A tool can only pass on rights it holds; it cannot create a copyright the law does not grant. “You own the output” means the provider will not dispute it, not that a competitor cannot generate something very close.

The risks that remain: data, faces, trade marks

Training data

Training disputes mainly concern the providers, but they reach you if an output reproduces a recognisable work. On 11 November 2025 the Munich Regional Court ruled for GEMA against OpenAI: song lyrics memorised in the models count as reproduction, and the text and data mining exception does not cover permanently building works into a model. At the EU Court of Justice, Like Company v Google, heard on 10 March 2026, will decide whether training a model and a chatbot’s answers are acts covered by copyright.

Real people’s faces and voices

Here the risk sits with you, not the tool. In Italy a person’s portrait cannot be displayed or reproduced without their consent (Article 96 of Law 633/1941), and Article 10 of the Civil Code lets a court stop misuse of someone’s image and award damages. Law 132/2025 also created a new criminal offence (Article 612-quater of the Criminal Code): spreading misleading AI-faked images, videos or voices without consent, causing unjust harm, carries one to five years in prison.

Since 2 August 2026, Article 50 of the AI Act has applied too: anyone deploying a deepfake must disclose that the content is generated or manipulated. For evidently artistic, creative or fictional work, a disclosure that does not spoil the viewing is enough.

The practical rule: a real face or voice goes into an AI video only with a written release that mentions AI use, channels and duration. If you need a recurring face, a digital character built from scratch reduces the problem.

Trade marks and characters in prompts

Typing a character’s or a brand’s name into a prompt does not make it yours. In June 2025 Disney and Universal sued Midjourney in a Los Angeles federal court, citing images of Darth Vader and the Minions. On 4 November 2025 in London, Getty Images lost its copyright case against Stability AI but won a very limited trade mark finding over its watermarks appearing in generated images.

In practice: no third-party logos, products or characters in prompts, and a frame-by-frame check before delivery.

AI video copyright: what to put in the contract

Under Italian law, a transfer of exploitation rights must be proven in writing. When AI is involved, the contract also records who made the creative choices. The clauses not to skip:

1. Assignment or licence. An assignment transfers the exploitation rights to you; a licence gives you a defined use. For a campaign a licence is usually enough.
2. Territory. Italy, Europe or worldwide.
3. Duration. Twelve months, twenty-four or in perpetuity, with a clear start date.
4. Channels. Organic social, paid ads, TV, cinema, out of home, LED walls, live events: name every one.
5. Exclusivity. Whether the studio may reuse characters, sets or looks created for you.
6. Source files. Masters, versions, edit projects, character assets. If you need them, write it down.
7. Credits and portfolio. Where the studio’s name appears and whether the work can be shown after release.
8. AI disclosure. Who labels the content, how and where, in line with Article 50 of the AI Act.
9. Warranties. Releases for faces and voices, no third-party trade marks, and a list of the tools used with their terms at the time of production.

Rights agreed before the first frame

For AI video copyright, the law asks for a human author, the tools leave you the output and the contract settles the rest. With documented direction and written rights, an AI video is as solid an asset as any other production.

At Kult Studios it works like this: territory, duration and channels are agreed before the first frame, and the usage licence is written into the proposal before work starts, as our FAQ explains. If you are planning an ad, the first step is the brief.

Frequently asked questions

Is a video generated from a prompt alone protected by copyright?

Rarely. Italian law requires the intellectual work of a human author, and the US Copyright Office takes the view that prompts alone do not give enough control over the result. Protection grows with documented creative choices: script, direction, selection, edit.

Who is the author of an AI video: the client, the studio or the software?

Not the software: the main providers claim no rights over outputs. The author is the person who makes the creative choices; the studio and the client acquire exploitation rights by contract, through a written assignment or licence.

Do I have to disclose that an ad was made with AI?

If it contains a deepfake, meaning realistic people, places or events that appear authentic, yes: since 2 August 2026 the AI Act requires disclosure. For creative or fictional work, a disclosure that does not spoil the viewing is enough; otherwise, set the rule in the contract.

Sources

1. Legge 23 settembre 2025, n. 132 - Disposizioni e deleghe al Governo in materia di intelligenza artificiale · Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 2025-09-25
2. Legge 633/1941, art. 1 (testo coordinato dopo la L. 132/2025) · Brocardi.it, 2026-08
3. Judgment of the Court, Case C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others · Court of Justice of the EU (EUR-Lex), 2011-12-01
4. Copyright and generative AI: Strasbourg calls for fair remuneration and legal certainty · Eunews, 2026-03-10
5. Commission follow-up to the European Parliament resolution on copyright and generative AI (P10_TA(2026)0066) · European Parliament / European Commission, 2026-07
6. Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability · U.S. Copyright Office, 2025-01
7. EU Terms of Use · OpenAI, 2026-01-16
8. Google Terms of Service · Google, 2026-07-30
9. Terms of Use · Runway, 2026-09-15
10. Who owns my generations and can I use them commercially? · Higgsfield, 2026-08-02
11. Updates to Higgsfield’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Higgsfield, 2026-07-25
12. German court rules in favour of music rights management organisation against OpenAI · European Commission, IP Helpdesk, 2025-11-14
13. CJEU Grand Chamber rules on music sampling and pastiche; first CJEU hearing on generative AI and copyright · European Commission, IP Helpdesk, 2026-04-24
14. Legge 633/1941, art. 96 (ritratto e consenso) · Brocardi.it, 1941-04-22
15. Codice civile, art. 10 - Abuso dell’immagine altrui · Brocardi.it, 2026-04
16. AI Act, Article 50: Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems · artificialintelligenceact.eu, 2024-06-13
17. Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney for copyright infringement · Euronews (with AP), 2025-06-12
18. Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator · Malay Mail (Reuters), 2025-11-04
19. Legge 633/1941, art. 110 (trasmissione dei diritti per iscritto) · Brocardi.it, 1941-04-22