Rights and provenance should be planned from the first source material, then maintained through to the version delivered. A production needs to know what it is permitted to use, who contributed the creative work, what changed and who approved the result.
These are related records, but they answer different questions. A permission describes an allowed use. Provenance describes origin and history. An approval records a decision. None automatically replaces the others.
Separate four questions
Before accepting a generated sequence, ask where its ingredients came from, what permissions apply, what human creative work shaped the result and what the commissioner has agreed to accept. Treating these as one general statement that the film is “cleared” makes later review harder.
A supplier’s commercial-use terms should be read for the relevant service, account and use. They do not, by themselves, establish that every uploaded reference was authorised or that the finished image contains no third-party material requiring review.
Keep a useful source register
Identify the material used in the production: scripts, photographs, recorded performances, voices, designs, music, footage and any other references that materially affect the output. Record the source, owner or provider, permitted use and relevant restrictions.
The register should distinguish owned material from licensed material and material whose status has not been resolved. An unresolved item needs an owner and a next action. It should not disappear into an undifferentiated folder marked “references”.
For commissioned designs, check the agreement governing their creation. A paid invoice and a complete rights agreement are different documents. The producer’s counsel can determine which licences, assignments or other permissions the production needs.
Record likeness and performance permissions
A person’s face, voice or recognisable performance requires particular attention. Explain the proposed use before capturing or supplying material for generation. Clarify the production, intended transformation, review arrangements and the permitted forms of reuse.
Avoid assuming that permission to record someone automatically includes permission to create new performances attributed to them. The appropriate agreement depends on the person, the use, applicable contracts and jurisdiction. Record what was actually agreed rather than a summary that drops important restrictions.
For invented characters, review the final designs and outputs as well. An intention to invent does not remove the need to assess an unintended resemblance or the use of a protected source.
Show the human creative contribution
A production record can identify the script, direction, design, selection, editing and other human contributions that shape the finished work. Keep enough version history to explain those contributions without claiming that a list of instructions settles every legal question.
The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 position distinguishes human-authored expression from expression determined by a machine. Its analysis does not treat the mere provision of prompts as sufficient authorship. Using AI within a larger human-created work does not automatically exclude that work from protection. This is a U.S. position, not a worldwide clearance rule.
UK policy and law must be considered separately. The UK government’s March 2026 report discusses copyright, computer-generated works and digital replicas. A policy report or consultation should not be presented as a new permission already granted to a particular production.
Connect approvals to versions
A reviewer needs to know which version was approved, for what purpose and subject to which conditions. “The director approved the scene” is incomplete if the shot subsequently changes or a different version enters the master.
Capture the reviewer, date, decision and material reviewed. Separate creative approval from a producer’s rights sign-off and the recipient’s technical acceptance. A single person may perform more than one role, but the decisions remain distinct.
Changes to a face, voice, source image or delivery use should trigger a review of the relevant permissions. A purely editorial change may not require the same checks as a new source, but that decision should be deliberate.
Define the security boundary
Where a production requires isolated or on-premise working, identify which activities occur inside that boundary. Include storage, processing, review, support access, backups and transfer for delivery. Test the actual arrangement rather than relying on the label “private”.
An on-premise system may improve control over where assets travel. It does not create rights that the production did not have, nor does it eliminate human access and operational responsibilities.
Deliver evidence a recipient can use
Agree a documentation list with the commissioner and legal team. Depending on the project, it may include source and permission summaries, the services used, approvals, exception records and a link between those records and the delivered versions.
Do not give a recipient a large log with no explanation of what it proves. Present the important decisions, the supporting documents and any remaining qualifications. Clear limits are more useful than a broad assurance nobody can substantiate.
Further reading
- U.S. Copyright Office: copyrightability and AI
- UK government: report on copyright and AI, March 2026
This is production planning guidance. The applicable contract, jurisdiction and proposed use determine the legal review required for a particular commission.
Written by Asa Bailey, director and founder of BAI-LEY.
Have a production in mind? Start an enquiry ↗