07 October 2026
Businesses outsource marketing all the time.
Social media management, video production, advertising, design and now AI-generated content are often handed to agencies or contractors.
But outsourcing the work does not necessarily outsource the intellectual property risk.
A recent Australian copyright case provides a useful reminder.
When an AI-generated ad becomes an IP problem
In CPPS Pty Ltd v Euclove Clean Pty Ltd, the dispute concerned a promotional video originally featuring a painter discussing his own business.
It was alleged that another business reproduced the video and used it on Instagram to promote its cleaning products.
The dispute then escalated.
A second video was allegedly created using artificial intelligence to clone the individual's voice and likeness, making it appear that he was endorsing the other company's products. The respondents said that a digital agency had created and published the material and that they had engaged the agency to create lawful, original content.
Importantly, this was not a final decision on whether the AI-generated video infringed copyright. The Court was dealing with the way the respondents had pleaded an innocent infringement defence.
That defence was ultimately struck out because the relevant pleading did not properly identify the facts supporting it.
But the broader business lesson is worth paying attention to.
“Our agency made it” is not an IP strategy
Generative AI has made it incredibly easy to produce marketing content quickly.
It has also made the supply chain behind that content harder to see.
A business might receive a finished video from an agency without knowing:
-
where the original footage came from;
-
whether the people appearing in it consented to the use;
-
whether an AI tool was used to alter a person's voice or appearance;
-
whether third-party copyright material was used;
-
what rights the AI platform gives the user; or
-
whether the agency actually owns everything it is supplying.
That can become a problem when the content is published under your brand.
The fact that an agency, freelancer or AI platform was involved may be relevant to liability, contractual recovery or an indemnity claim. But it does not mean the business can ignore the underlying rights.
AI marketing needs a provenance check
Businesses are increasingly asking whether AI-generated content is “safe to use”.
There is no single answer.
The better question is: what is this content based on, and what rights do we have to use it?
That becomes particularly important where AI is being used to recreate real people, existing photographs, videos, music, characters, logos or other recognisable material.
In the Euclove dispute, the allegations became particularly striking because the AI-generated material was said to have appeared after concerns had already been raised about the earlier use of the video. The evidence referred to communications about removing the first video, followed by the later appearance of the second alleged AI-generated version.
That is a very different risk profile from accidentally publishing an image with an unclear licence.
What should businesses ask their marketing agencies?
AI clauses are starting to become a practical part of marketing and creative contracts.
At a minimum, businesses should know:
Who created the content?
Was it created from scratch, adapted from existing material or generated using AI?
What source material was used?
If real people, footage, photographs, music or other protected material was used, were the necessary permissions obtained?
Who owns the final work?
Paying for content does not automatically answer the copyright ownership question.
Can the agency use generative AI?
If it can, the contract should address what tools can be used and what safeguards apply.
Who carries the risk if something goes wrong?
Warranties and indemnities should be considered, particularly where an agency is responsible for sourcing or generating content.
What happens when someone raises an IP complaint?
There should be a process for investigating the issue, preserving records and taking content down where appropriate.
The bigger issue is control
AI has not removed the need for IP due diligence.
It has made it more important.
Businesses may now be several steps removed from the material appearing in their own advertising. A marketing manager briefs an agency. The agency briefs a freelancer. The freelancer uses an AI platform. The platform produces the image or video.
By the time the final content reaches the business, it can look completely original.
That does not tell you whether the underlying rights are clear.
The sensible approach is not to ban AI from marketing. It is to make sure there is enough visibility over how content is created and enough contractual protection when third parties are creating it for you.
If your business is using agencies, contractors or generative AI to create marketing content, IP ownership and usage rights should be dealt with before the campaign goes live, not after a complaint arrives.
IP Solved can help businesses review copyright ownership, AI-related IP risks and contracts with marketing agencies and content providers.
