Establishing chain of title means documenting the rights and permissions that support the proposed exploitation of a film. When AI is involved, the producer still needs to understand the sources, human contributions, agreements and conditions behind the material being delivered.
A generation log can support that review. It cannot replace the agreements that give a production its rights, and it cannot create rights that do not exist. Start with the proposed use, then assemble the evidence needed for that use.
Define the work and its exploitation
Identify the film, sequence or asset being commissioned and the versions expected for delivery. Describe the intended media, territories, duration, promotional use and any planned reuse where those matters are relevant to the agreement.
This gives the rights review a purpose. A permission sufficient for internal development may not cover a public release. An arrangement for one film may not authorise a new series, advertising campaign or character performance.
Keep assumptions visible during development. If a future use is not yet agreed, do not treat it as included merely because the underlying asset can technically be reused.
Identify the source material
Create a register for scripts, footage, performances, photographs, voices, designs, music and other material used in the production. Record who provided each item and the evidence supporting the proposed use.
Distinguish the owner of a physical file from the holder of the relevant rights. A person able to send a photograph is not necessarily able to grant every permission required for its use in a film or as generation input.
Mark incomplete items and assign responsibility for resolving them. The goal is a register the producer can act on, rather than a retrospective list made after the team has lost access to the source or contributor.
Review contributor agreements
Writers, designers, performers, musicians, editors and other contributors may work under different agreements. Confirm the rights being granted and the restrictions that remain. The appropriate contractual form should be determined for the project and jurisdiction.
For a UK copyright assignment, section 90 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act sets a written, signed requirement. That is a specific legal rule, not a claim that one generic release is sufficient for every production contribution.
For identifiable performers, consider the recorded performance and any planned synthetic use separately. Describe the intended transformation and exploitation clearly enough for the relevant agreement and approval process.
Keep output questions separate
A supplier may grant commercial-use rights under its service terms. That does not automatically establish ownership of every expressive element in an output or resolve third-party claims connected to a particular source.
In the United States, the Copyright Office’s 2025 analysis puts human authorship at the centre of copyrightability. Human creative arrangements or modifications may be relevant, while the mere provision of prompts does not settle authorship. The assessment of a particular film still depends on its facts.
Record the human creative work involved without converting a production account into a legal conclusion. A director’s decisions, approved designs and editorial work are useful evidence. Their legal significance should be reviewed in the relevant context.
Connect evidence to the final versions
A rights pack should identify the material actually delivered. An earlier permission summary can become incomplete if new references, music, performer material or substantial transformations enter a later version.
Use a version convention that lets the production connect its approval and source records to the delivered shots and master. Keep a clear record of replacements and exceptions. Do not overwrite the only evidence of an earlier state when a change needs to be explained.
This does not require publishing confidential records. It requires making them available to the people entitled to assess them, in a form they can understand.
Review the promises in the production agreement
A commissioner may ask for warranties, indemnities, insurance or particular delivery documents. These are project-specific commitments. They should be assessed against the actual rights evidence rather than accepted because they appear in a familiar template.
Where there is a qualification, decide whether to change the material, obtain further permission or agree a different contractual position. Record who has authority to accept that decision.
The rights trail can be well organised without every question being resolved immediately. What matters is that unresolved points remain explicit and cannot be mistaken for completed clearance.
Prepare a concise handover
A useful handover can include a source and rights summary, contributor agreement references, performer permissions, relevant service terms, approval history and an exception list. Agree the required content with the recipient and the production’s advisers.
Keep the pack readable. Each document should answer a question about the work being delivered. A large collection of metadata is not automatically a clearer explanation of authority.
Further reading
Chain-of-title review is specific to the production, its contracts and its distribution. Use qualified advisers to assess the rights being offered and the evidence supporting them.
Written by Asa Bailey, director and founder of BAI-LEY.
Have a production in mind? Start an enquiry ↗