Who owns the artwork
If a designer draws it, who owns it?
The person who draws a design owns the copyright in it, unless they drew it as an employee or have signed it over in writing; paying for the work does not by itself move it. A design generated wholly by an AI tool has no copyright in the United States, on the Copyright Office’s reading, and the United Kingdom’s rule protecting one was proposed for removal in March 2026.
Copyright starts with the person who drew it
A design on a shirt is an artistic work, and the right to copy it is copyright. Copyright does not belong to whoever paid for the drawing, or to whoever holds the file. It belongs first to the author, and the author is ordinarily the person who created the work.
Official sourceCDPA 1988 is the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 17 U.S.C. is the US Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code, read here in the Copyright Office’s edition. · Source: CDPA 1988, s. 4 (artistic works), CDPA 1988, s. 9 (authorship), CDPA 1988, s. 11 (first ownership), 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205), Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire · checked
No form has to be filled in. In the UK copyright arises automatically, and there is no register of copyright works. In the US it exists from the moment the work is fixed. Registration there is optional, but a claim over a US work cannot go to court until the work is registered, and registering after the copying began can cost the owner statutory damages and legal fees.
Official sourceSource: GOV.UK, How copyright protects your work, Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, 17 U.S.C. chapter 4 (ss. 408, 411 and 412) · checked
The owner has the exclusive right to copy the work and to issue copies to the public. Printing a design on a shirt is copying it, and putting the shirts on sale is issuing copies, so anybody else needs the owner’s permission to do either. Owning a copy is not owning the copyright: the US statute says that handing over an object, the original included, does not of itself convey any rights in the work.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 16 (the acts restricted by copyright), GOV.UK, The rights granted by copyright, 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205) · checked
The right outlasts every deal made about it. In the UK it runs for 70 years after the end of the year in which the author dies. In the US it runs for the author’s life and 70 years, or, for a work made for hire (explained below), for 95 years from publication or 120 from creation, whichever ends first.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 12 (duration), 17 U.S.C. chapter 3 (s. 302) · checked
An employee’s work belongs to the employer
Employment is the first exception. In the UK, where an artistic work is made by an employee in the course of their employment, the employer is the first owner, unless a contract says otherwise. The Act defines employment as work under a contract of service or of apprenticeship.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 11 (first ownership), CDPA 1988, s. 178 (definitions) · checked
The US reaches the same place by another route. A work prepared by an employee within the scope of the job is a “work made for hire”, and the employer is treated as its author as well as its owner. The statute does not define “employee”. The Copyright Office’s guide says the courts read the word in the light of the general law of agency, and it lists the questions they ask, such as who supplied the tools, who set the hours and how the person was paid.
Official sourceSource: 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205), Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire · checked
A founder is not automatically an employee
The employer rule has a gap that small companies fall into. A limited company is legally separate from the people who own it. A founder who draws the designs as a director, and is not also employed by the company, may fall outside the UK’s wording, because there is no contract of service. The government’s guide to employment status classes directors as office holders for tax purposes, and says a director may also hold an employment contract for other work.
Official sourceSource: GOV.UK, Set up a private limited company, GOV.UK, Employment status: director, CDPA 1988, s. 178 (definitions) · checked
In that case the legal title starts with the founder personally. In 2003 the Court of Appeal said that a director who creates designs while running the company’s business, using its assets, holds them in trust for the company, which can call for them to be assigned. Until that is done, the company that signs the licence and tells an artist the designs are its own does not hold the legal title. A written assignment signed by the founder closes the gap, and it can cover designs not yet drawn. In the US the same founder is tested against the agency questions, like anybody else.
Official sourceThe 2003 case was about design right in parts for conservatories, and quotes an earlier ruling on a managing director’s drawings to the same effect. Applying it to a founder who draws merch is a reading made for this chapter. · Source: CDPA 1988, s. 11 (first ownership), Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding, Court of Appeal, [2003] EWCA Civ 1805, CDPA 1988, s. 90 (assignment and licences), CDPA 1988, s. 91 (future copyright), Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire · checked
A freelancer’s work belongs to the freelancer
A freelance illustrator, a studio or a friend of the act is not an employee. Paying the invoice does not by itself move the copyright in either country.
In the UK the freelancer is the first owner unless the two sides agree otherwise in writing. Where a contract is silent, the guidance says a court may find an implied licence that lets the client use the work for the purpose it was commissioned for. That is usually permission and not ownership.
Official sourceSource: GOV.UK, Ownership of copyright works, GOV.UK, License, sell or market your copyright material · checked
A court can go further. In 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that the client behind a commissioned logo owned its copyright in equity and could have it assigned. The summary of the law it approved implies a licence where a licence is enough, and the copyright itself only where the client needs to shut the designer out, as where work is commissioned so that the client can make and sell copies free of competition from the designer. That fits much merch, but it turns on the facts of each case and takes a court to decide.
Official sourceSetting merch against the judgment’s example is a reading made for this chapter. · Source: R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans, Court of Appeal, [2005] EWCA Civ 11 · checked
The certain way to move ownership is an assignment. In the UK an assignment is not effective unless it is in writing and signed by, or on behalf of, the person giving the copyright up. The signature that counts is the designer’s, not the client’s. An agreement signed before the work is drawn can assign the future copyright, so that it belongs to the client from the moment it exists.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 90 (assignment and licences), CDPA 1988, s. 91 (future copyright) · checked
The US adds a trap. A freelancer’s work can be a work made for hire only if it was specially ordered for one of nine listed uses, such as a translation or part of a film, and only if both sides signed a written agreement saying so. The Copyright Office’s guide says a work that fails any of the requirements is not a work made for hire. A stand-alone drawing for a shirt is none of the nine on its face, so the words “work made for hire” in a freelancer’s contract do not by themselves give the client the copyright.
Official sourceThe list and the test are the Office’s. Setting a shirt drawing against the list is a reading made for this chapter. · Source: 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire · checked
What does move it is a transfer. A US transfer of copyright ownership is not valid unless it is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights, and it can be recorded at the Copyright Office. In both countries the same rules cover the other things made for a merch line by people outside it, such as product photographs and a logo.
Official sourceSource: 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205), 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), CDPA 1988, s. 4 (artistic works) · checked
How was the design made?
- A person drew it
Who were they working for when they drew it?
- Themselves
They own it.
The author is the first owner in both countries. An artist who draws their own merch owns it.
- An employer, as part of the job
The employer owns it.
UK: unless a contract says otherwise. US: it is a work made for hire, and the employer counts as the author.
- A company they direct but are not employed by
Have they assigned it to the company in a signed document?
- Yes
The company owns it.
- No
Do not assume the company holds it.
UK: the legal title starts with the person, though a court may treat it as held in trust for the company. US: it turns on whether they count as an employee under agency law.
- Yes
- A client, as a freelancer or a studio
Has the designer or the studio signed a written assignment?
- Yes
Whoever it was assigned to owns it.
If the signer owned it. A studio can assign only what its own staff drew, or what was assigned to it.
- No
In law, the designer or the studio owns it.
UK: the client usually has an implied licence, and a court may find it is entitled to more. US: the words “work made for hire” do not change this for a stand-alone drawing.
- Yes
- Themselves
- A person reworked what an AI tool generated
The person’s own contribution can be owned, by the rules on the first branch.
US: the generated material underneath is not protected. UK: protected where the creative expression comes from the person.
- An AI tool made it from a prompt
US: no copyright, on the Copyright Office’s reading. UK: untested.
The UK Act gives 50 years to whoever made the arrangements for a computer-generated work. Removing that was proposed on 18 March 2026.
The tree gives the starting position in law. A signed contract can move the answer on any branch.
Official sourceThe rules are the two statutes’, the two offices’ and the courts’. Setting them out as one tree was done for this chapter. · Source: CDPA 1988, s. 11 (first ownership), CDPA 1988, s. 90 (assignment and licences), GOV.UK, Ownership of copyright works, R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans, Court of Appeal, [2005] EWCA Civ 11, Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding, Court of Appeal, [2003] EWCA Civ 1805, Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire, Copyright Office, AI report, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025, UK government, Report on Copyright and AI, 18 March 2026 · checked
What copyright does not cover
Some of what goes on a shirt is not protected by copyright at all. The US Copyright Office will not register words and short phrases, however novel or distinctive. Its examples include a stage name, a band’s name, catchphrases and slogans. It does not register typeface or mere variations of lettering either, with what it calls very limited exceptions.
That matters to an act whose merch is a catchphrase set in type: in the US the words are not protected by copyright, though a drawing beside them follows the rules above. That is the US office’s rule; the UK’s test is whether the thing is an original literary or artistic work. In both countries a name, a brand or a slogan is a matter for trade mark law, outside this chapter.
Official sourceSource: Copyright Office, Circular 33: Works Not Protected by Copyright, CDPA 1988, s. 1 (copyright works), GOV.UK, Intellectual property and your work · checked
AI-generated artwork
This part of the subject is moving, so every statement in it carries its date.
United States
The US Copyright Office requires a human author. Its report on the question, published on 29 January 2025, concludes that copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or to material where a person had too little control over the expressive elements. It also concludes that, on the technology generally available, prompts alone do not give that control.
The same report says what is protected. Using AI as a tool to assist human creativity, and not to stand in for it, does not affect copyright in the result. A human author keeps copyright in their own expression where it can be perceived in the output, in a creative selection or arrangement of generated material, and in creative changes made to it.
Official sourceSource: Copyright Office, AI report, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025 · checked
Under guidance published on 16 March 2023, an applicant has a duty to disclose AI-generated content in a work and to describe briefly what the human author contributed. Generated content that is more than minimal is left out of the claim. The 2025 report says the Office had registered hundreds of works on that footing, each registration covering the human contribution.
Official sourceSource: Copyright Office, registration guidance on AI-generated material, 16 March 2023, Copyright Office, AI report, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025 · checked
The courts have gone part of the way with the Office. On 18 March 2025 a federal appeals court upheld its refusal to register a picture whose application named a machine as the only author, holding that the Copyright Act requires a work to be authored in the first instance by a human being. It did not decide whether the person who used the machine could be the author. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 2 March 2026. On 6 October 2026 the Office’s page on AI still gave the January 2025 report as its position.
Official sourceSource: Thaler v. Perlmutter, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 18 March 2025, Supreme Court of the United States, docket 25-449, Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence · checked
United Kingdom
The UK has had a rule for this since 1988. A work is computer-generated when it is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author. The Act names an author anyway: the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. That copyright lasts 50 years from the end of the year in which the work was made.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 9 (authorship), CDPA 1988, s. 178 (definitions), CDPA 1988, s. 12 (duration) · checked
How that rule applies to the output of an AI tool has not been tested in court. A government report published on 18 March 2026 says that with a general-purpose AI tool the deemed author will usually be the person who typed the prompt, but that it is unclear how an original yet wholly machine-made work would be defined. It proposed removing the protection unless evidence emerged of its value, while copyright went on protecting work made with AI assistance, where the creative expression comes from a person.
That is a proposal and not the law, and GOV.UK now marks the report as published under the previous government. No later statement of policy was found for this chapter. On 6 October 2026 the section was still in force, and the official legislation website recorded no outstanding change to it.
Official sourceSource: UK government, Report on Copyright and AI, 18 March 2026, GOV.UK, the report’s publication page, CDPA 1988, s. 9 (authorship) · checked
| The design | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Generated from a prompt, with nothing added | The Act gives 50 years to a computer-generated work, with whoever made the arrangements as author. Untested for AI output, and proposed for removal in March 2026. | No copyright, on the Copyright Office’s reading. Prompts alone do not make the user an author. |
| Drawn by a person, using AI to help | Protected like any other original work. | Protected. Using AI as a tool does not affect copyright. |
| Generated, then reworked by a person | Protected where the creative expression comes from the person. | The person’s changes, selection and arrangement are protected. The generated material is not. |
| Registering it | There is no register. | Optional. AI content that is more than minimal is disclosed and left out of the claim. |
| What is changing | A report of 18 March 2026, under the previous government, proposed removing the 50-year protection. Nothing had changed by 6 October. | The Office’s report of 29 January 2025 recommends no change to the law. |
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 9 (authorship), CDPA 1988, s. 12 (duration), UK government, Report on Copyright and AI, 18 March 2026, Copyright Office, AI report, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025, Copyright Office, registration guidance on AI-generated material, 16 March 2023 · checked
What that does to a deal
A merch deal assumes there is a copyright to deal in. Where a design is purely generated, that assumption fails in the US on the Office’s reading and is uncertain in the UK, and the promises that rest on it go with it.
| What the contract says | What it is worth |
|---|---|
| An exclusive licence to the design | Nothing exclusive can be granted. Copyright does not stop anybody else printing the design. |
| A buy-out of the designs at the end | There is nothing to assign, so nothing is bought. |
| The right to act against counterfeits | No claim in copyright. A trade mark in a name or a logo on the shirt is a separate right. |
| One side stops selling the design when the deal ends | Only the contract holds that side to it. Copyright does not. |
This is what follows in the United States from the Copyright Office’s position. It is not a statement by the Office.
Divini’s own dataA reading worked out for this chapter from the Office’s report. · Source: Copyright Office, AI report, Part 2: Copyrightability, 29 January 2025 · checked
The Office’s test turns on what a person contributed, and an application has to describe that contribution. So the record of how a design was made is what a claim rests on: the sketch, the layered file, the generated image beside the finished one.
Official sourceThe duty to describe the human contribution is the Office’s. What makes a useful record is a reading made for this chapter. · Source: Copyright Office, registration guidance on AI-generated material, 16 March 2023 · checked
Licences and buy-outs
There are two ways to let somebody else use a design. An assignment transfers ownership. A licence is permission: the owner keeps the copyright and sets out what the other side may do with it, where, and for how long.
- Assignment
- Ownership moves. In both countries it has to be in writing and signed by the person giving it up, and it can be limited to some of the rights or to a period.
- Exclusive licence
- Only the licensee may use the design in the way the licence describes, which shuts out the owner as well. In the UK it has to be in writing and signed by the owner, and the licensee can then act against copying much as an owner could. In the US it counts as a transfer of ownership, so it needs the same signed writing as an assignment.
- Non-exclusive licence
- Permission that the owner may also give to others. It needs no signed writing in either country, so one can be implied from how two sides have behaved.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 90 (assignment and licences), CDPA 1988, s. 92 (exclusive licences), CDPA 1988, s. 101 (rights of an exclusive licensee), 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205), Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, GOV.UK, License, sell or market your copyright material · checked
“Buy-out” is the trade’s word for a purchase of the copyright. Whatever a contract calls it, ownership moves only by an assignment that carries the signature the statute asks for. A clause that says an artist may buy the designs out when the deal ends is an option, and the assignment is the document that carries it out.
In the US even an outright sale is not always final. An author who did not make the work for hire can end a transfer or a licence during a five-year window. It opens 35 years after the grant was signed or, where the grant covers publishing the work, 35 years after publication or 40 after signing, whichever is sooner. That holds whatever the contract says.
Official sourceSection 203. The author has to serve notice in advance. · Source: 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205), Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire · checked
When the deal ends
Who can keep selling a design after a deal ends is decided by who owns it on that day, and by what the licence says about its own end.
| Who owns the artwork | The merch company | The artist |
|---|---|---|
| The merch company, which licensed it to the artist for the term | Owns the copyright in the drawing. The artist’s name on it is a separate right, outside this chapter. | Needs a new licence, or an assignment, to keep printing it. |
| The artist, who drew it or took an assignment | Needs the artist’s permission from that day on. | Can carry on, with any printer. |
| The freelancer who drew it, because nothing was signed | Usually has no more than permission to use it, and nothing it can pass on. | The same. Neither side can sell or license what it does not own. |
| Nobody: a purely generated design, in the US | Nothing in copyright stops it selling. | Nothing in copyright stops the artist, or anybody else. |
The starting position where the contract says nothing more. A contract can change every row, and a UK court can find that a client is entitled to artwork it commissioned.
Divini’s own dataThe rules of this chapter applied to the end of a deal, worked out for this chapter. · Source: CDPA 1988, s. 16 (the acts restricted by copyright), CDPA 1988, s. 90 (assignment and licences), R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans, Court of Appeal, [2005] EWCA Civ 11, 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A), 17 U.S.C. chapter 2 (ss. 201 to 205) · checked
The first row is the one to read a contract for. A design can carry an act’s name, sell from the act’s own store for years, and still belong to the company that drew it.
Moral rights
The UK gives the author of an artistic work personal rights that sit beside the copyright, and stay with the author when the copyright is sold. Two matter here. One is the right to be identified as the author. It has no effect until the author has asserted it in writing, and it does not apply to what the owner authorises where an employer owned the work from the start. The other is the right to object to derogatory treatment, meaning a change that distorts or mutilates the work, or harms the author’s reputation.
Neither right can be assigned. Either can be waived in a signed document, and a waiver can cover work that does not exist yet. So an assignment by itself leaves both rights with the designer, and a waiver is a separate line in the same document.
Official sourceSource: CDPA 1988, s. 77 (right to be identified), CDPA 1988, s. 78 (the right must be asserted), CDPA 1988, s. 79 (exceptions), CDPA 1988, s. 80 (derogatory treatment), CDPA 1988, s. 87 (consent and waiver), CDPA 1988, s. 94 (moral rights not assignable) · checked
The US equivalent is far narrower. Its rights of attribution and integrity belong only to the author of a “work of visual art”: a painting, drawing, print or sculpture that exists as a single copy, or in a signed and numbered edition of 200 or fewer. The definition leaves out any merchandising item and any work made for hire, so a printed shirt falls outside it.
Official sourceSource: 17 U.S.C. chapter 1 (ss. 101, 102, 106 and 106A) · checked