20 July 2026
AI platforms are hungry.
They need words, images, voices, names, characters, designs, artworks, trade marks and other creative material to train models and generate outputs.
That creates a simple but uncomfortable question:
Who gave permission?
A new AI consent registry backed by Cate Blanchett and RSL Media is trying to answer that question. The idea is to let people declare whether AI platforms may use their name, work, characters, marks and other protected material.
It is a timely development.
Creators are asking whether their work has been used to train AI systems. Performers are asking whether their voice or likeness can be copied. Businesses are asking whether their brands, logos, product images, campaigns or mascots can be scraped, reproduced or imitated.
The legal position is still developing. But one thing is already clear: AI does not remove the need for consent, ownership checks or licensing discipline.
A consent registry may help people and businesses signal their position. It may help create a clearer record of what is authorised and what is not. It may also help AI systems identify permissions in a machine-readable way.
But it is not a magic shield.
For brand owners, the bigger issue is control.
A business may own its trade marks, but not all the content around them. A campaign might include photography, music, illustrations, video, talent, agency-created copy, user-generated content or licensed material. Each layer can have different ownership and consent issues.
That matters when AI enters the picture.
Before using AI tools to generate marketing content, train internal systems or repurpose existing brand assets, businesses should ask:
- Do we own the material being uploaded?
- Do our licences allow AI use?
- Have models, actors, photographers, designers or agencies consented to this use?
- Could the output reproduce someone else’s copyright work, image, voice or brand?
- Are we keeping records of prompts, inputs, outputs and approvals?
- The risk is not just copyright infringement.
There may also be trade mark issues, passing off, misleading or deceptive conduct, confidentiality problems, privacy concerns, moral rights issues and contract breaches. In Australia, there is no broad standalone “image right” in the way some people assume. That makes the surrounding legal framework even more important.
For creators, the message is equally blunt: do not assume your rights are obvious to AI systems. Make your position clear. Use contracts. Keep records. Register what can be registered. Control licensing terms. Watch for unauthorised use.
For businesses, the message is: do not treat AI as a legal shortcut.
AI can be a powerful tool. But it should sit inside a proper IP governance system. That means clear internal rules about what can be uploaded, what tools can be used, what outputs need review, and who signs off before publication.
A good AI policy should cover:
-
ownership of input materials;
-
use of confidential information;
-
trade mark and brand use;
-
copyright clearance;
-
third-party licences;
-
use of names, images and voices;
-
record keeping;
-
human review before release.
Consent registries are a useful step. But they are only one part of the bigger issue: who controls creative and commercial identity in the AI economy?
For businesses building brands, launching campaigns or using AI in content creation, that question needs to be answered before something goes live — not after a complaint arrives.
IP Solved helps businesses protect, licence and enforce their brands and creative assets, including in new AI-driven workflows. Before your team starts uploading brand material, campaign assets or third-party content into AI tools, it is worth checking whether your rights, contracts and clearance processes are ready for that use.
