Empty Promises: AI-Generated Image v. Stock Photo Rights Explained

Do you own AI-generated images?

Mar 06, 2025

Here at The LawVerse, we don’t just take immense pride in what we write. We also meticulously craft the images you see in our articles. We’ll spend sometimes hours to get one image perfect through a mix of AI-generation and our own editing.

And, people have noticed. And by people, I mean my family member who has enlisted me to help them pull together images for a pregnancy-related app.

As we were building the app’s mise-en-scène, we debated whether to use stock photos (i.e. actual photographs) or AI-generated images (synthetic media). For a company on a budget, some of the pricier stock photo options were just out of reach. So, I turned to AI. The results were interesting.

I wanted to pass along what I learned through this process to help other startups who are trying to decide between stock photos and AI-generated images.

TLDR: you have to read the license to know what you are buying.

I. Why Choose AI and Not Real Photos?

AI-generated images can be a more attractive option than stock images for a few reasons.

Customization: AI image generators let users custom-make images to fit a prompt within seconds. To get the perfect image, users can keep re-prompting the algorithm or edit the image later if they need to.
Uniformity: AI image generators can keep the look consistent between the images, whereas stock photos may have different tones, lighting, or feel to them.
Price: A subscription to an AI image generator can be much more cost-effective than buying licenses to many stock photos. Generating multiple images may be free up to a certain number of outputs or may require a subscription. Because I needed a lot of images, the cost for AI seemed more of a bargain.
Ownership Rights: You can own the rights to use the output (i.e. images) without any restrictions....well, depends on the terms of use and the law in your country. Will discuss this more below.

II. AI-Generated Images: The Good, the Bad, the Too Perfect

Is this too good to be true? AI image generators have a few common pitfalls. Some are fixable. Others… not so much.

Let’s look at what I was trying to generate. Because this app is meant to appeal to a global audience, I tried to generate images showcasing diversity so that everyone could see themselves in the app. My prompting raised the following issues with using AI:

A. Homogeneity and Bias:

Just as humans have bias, so does the LLM creating the images. AI’s default person in an image will just look like the below: young, thin, pretty, and Caucasian. These default people are often too perfect–to the point of not looking human–and attractive by default.

**Young, beautiful, thin, and caucasian.**

Just as humans are biased, so too was the LLM creating the images. Now, I prompted it to reflect people with specific ethnicities to force it to be diverse, and the results were mixed.

Example Results - Good: I could get the result with some prompting.

Example Results - Bad:

**Clearly, people dressed up in a costume.**

Example Results - Bafflingly Bad:

After a few attempts, I finally realized that this is mixing an Orthodox man’s hat with the Orthodox woman’s outfit into something that looks like a cross between Guinan from Star Trek and Barbara Streisand from Yentil…..Oy, Captain.

**Left: Guinan from Star Trek. Right: Barbara Streisand as Yentl.**

I gave up trying to reprompt. Took the last image to Adobe Firefly to delete the hat thing and put on a winter beanie.

B. Weird Anomalies:

Besides bias, AI infamously generates weird things like extra limbs or random objects. Sometimes, everyone looks like they are wearing the same uniform, and the same person may appear in one image

III. What’s Causing These Odd AI Outputs?

Why do we get such strange results?

First, let’s look at what AI image generators do. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are complex algorithms designed to predict. In text, they act like fancy autocorrect machines: using the data they’ve been shown in the past (“trained” on) and what you give them, they play fill-in-the-blank to predict what comes next. AI image generators work the same way, using the data they’ve been given to make informed predictions about what you want to see.

While LLMs’ complexity makes it hard to pinpoint exactly why they produce these strange images, experts have a few theories:

Training Data: LLMs only have the data we give them. If they’re trained on biased or outdated information, they’ll spit that bias back up.
User Data: Besides training data, users’ prompts shape LLMs’ answers. A biased prompt creates a biased answer. To see this in action, look at Microsoft Bing chatbot, which produced less weird results when Microsoft limited how long users could chat with it.
Dumb Computers: Unlike you and I, LLMs have no cultural or artistic knowledge. This means they can’t identify and correct their biased results unless their creators or users force them to. They also can’t use common sense or artistic principles to add texture to too-perfect skin, count how many fingers are on a hand, or stop hair from melting into the fabric of someone’s shirt.

IV. Do I Really Own the AI Output? Is There a Catch?

It feels too easy…..Let’s take a look at what ChatGBT’s terms of use say:

Ownership Means Commercial Usage Rights. The terms state that you own the images with certain limits and conditions. Ownership rights mean the right to use, modify, reprint, sell, merchandise, and distribute the images as you want – whether you generate the image for free or paid credit. [This wasn’t always the case. For example, with Dall-E 2, OpenAI owned the output.].

Note, this doesn’t necessarily mean you own the copyright.

Copyright (No Ownership in US). In the US, you can’t copyright AI-generated images because only works made by humans can be copyrighted (for more on this - please see this prior post). Having a copyright means you have the exclusive right to use or stop anyone from using your work (though there are some exceptions and the right doesn’t last forever).

Note, the American tradition isn’t followed in other countries:

European Union (Ownership Is Possible): EU law doesn’t tell us much about the ownership of AI-generated works, so it’s really individual member states that must determine this question. Member states like Germany and France demand significant human input for copyright, excluding purely automated works.
UK (Ownership Available): UK law requires that a work be the "author's own intellectual creation" showing a "personal touch." Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), the UK extends copyright protection to "computer-generated works,” including those created by AI. The author is the person who made the necessary arrangements. The individual who made the “arrangements necessary for the creation of the work” would be considered the author of the work (though unclear who that person is making “necessary arrangements”).
US (Not Really): What about if you really rework it…..are LawVerse images copyrightable?
- In February 2023, the US Copyright Office awarded copyright protection to Kristina Kashtanova for the written content and the composite layout of text and images in her comic book "Zarya of the Dawn." However, the individual images produced by the AI tool Midjourney were not copyrighted because their unpredictable generation means the creator does not have enough control over their final appearance. Despite Kashtanova's significant involvement and creative input, the images alone were not eligible for copyright protection.
- Most recently, in a January 2025 report from the U.S. Copyright Office, inputting prompts into generative AI, without more substantial involvement, does not grant the user copyright over the output, stressing that true authorship involves active control over the work’s expressive elements.
- So for the LawVerse images, probably depends on how much I rework them….Ahem, I do!

Exclusivity. Because there is no copyright protection for an AI image, you don’t have any exclusivity rights to the output. That means that any AI-generated content is in the public domain (i.e., it’s not protected by IP laws….the public owns the works). So, while AI tools may promise you own the image, what they really mean is that you can use it (but so can everyone else). The fact that the LLM generated an image for you doesn’t mean you have exclusive rights. AI companies could also generate the same or similar output for someone else to use, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that.

Rights OpenAI Retains. Per the terms of use, OpenAI retains the rights to the model and use the generated content to improve its services. They may use your prompts and the resulting outputs for research, development, and improvement of their models and services. Additionally, OpenAI may employ the generated content for promotional purposes and marketing. They also reserve the right to monitor your usage to ensure compliance with their terms of service and content policies.

V. Can I Generate Anything I Want?

No, you have to comply with the license of the AI vendor.

For example, if you violate ChatGBT’s polices, OpenAI may suspend or terminate your access to its services, and you may be required to delete any content that violates their policies. Repeated or severe violations could include legal consequences, depending on the nature of the violation. Additionally, your account may be flagged or restricted from future use of OpenAI's tools.

OpenAI can also refuse to follow what it deems “harmful instructions…to produce harmful content.” Its universal policies require users to comply with laws, avoid causing harm, not misuse service outputs, and respect safety safeguards. This is known as content filtering, which effectively puts guardrails up before you can input anything into the model.

Specifically, the DALL-E 2 Content Policy prohibits creating, uploading, or sharing images that are not G-rated or could cause harm, including hate speech, harassment, violence, self-harm, sexual content, shocking subjects, illegal activities, deception, political content, health-related misinformation, and spam. Users must not mislead others about AI involvement and must respect the rights of others by not using images of people without consent, images without appropriate usage rights, or creating images of public figures.

VI. Do I Really Own the Output?

There are many cases pending before the US courts as to whether using copyrighted works without permission to train AI models that generate images are in violation of the original authors' works. If the algo is trained on images in violation of that creator’s copyright, AI companies promising that you own the image (or really the commercial use of that image) may be an empty promise. You could see creators trying to enforce their rights against AI users exploiting derivative works.

We just don’t know how the courts will come down on this. You will have to do your own risk/reward analysis here. Note, if you are trying to copy or imitate the style of another creator for your image, then that’s likely an increased risk.

Alaska Purchase (1867): The U.S. bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Given that Native Alaskans inhabited the land for centuries, the Russians sold what wasn’t theirs to sell to the US…sound familiar?

VII. How Do My Rights under AI Compare to Those of Stock Photos?

Stock photos are professionally taken photographs available for licensing. The rights you get by using them are pretty similar to those of AI-generated images. Some of the most well-known photo companies include Getty Images, Shutterstock, and Adobe.

Ownership Means Commercial Usage Rights: When you purchase stock photos, you typically acquire a license that grants you the right to use the images under specific terms and conditions set by the stock photo provider. These rights generally include the ability to use, modify, reproduce, and distribute the images for commercial purposes. This does not mean you own the copyright to the image.

Copyright: Because photographs are taken by humans, they are eligible for copyright protection. Note that the copyright is usually held by the photographer or the stock photo agency, not by the customer of the stock photo company. Customers usually purchase a license to use the image, not the copyright. This means that while you can use the images according to the terms of the license, the copyright owner retains the exclusive right to enforce copyright protections against unauthorized use.

Exclusivity: Because photographs can be copyrighted, whoever owns the copyright can control its use and prevent others from using it. When a consumer licenses an image, you are likely obtaining the following types of licenses:

Royalty-free licenses: You typically pay a one-time fee to use an image in various ways without paying any additional royalties per use. The license is non-exclusive, meaning the stock photo company can license the image out to someone else.
Rights-managed licenses: Fees are based on a specific use, duration, or geographic region. Sometimes, this license may be exclusive for a fee.
Exclusive licenses: The customer can obtain the right to be the exclusive user of the image (rarer in practice because it’s much more expensive).
Duration: Stock photo licenses can vary significantly in duration depending on the type of license and the terms agreed upon. It could be into perpetuity, or it could be a few years.

Rights Retained by the Stock Photo Company: Stock photo providers retain certain rights over the images, including the ability to resell the same image to other clients (unless an exclusive license is purchased). They also set the terms and conditions of usage, which can include restrictions on how and where the images can be used, such as limitations on print runs, geographic regions, and types of media.

As an example, Shutterstock offers various types of licenses, including:

standard licenses are royalty-free, allowing the same image to be used by multiple customers;
enhanced licenses with broader usage rights but still non-exclusive;
editorial licenses for non-commercial uses (i.e., news articles and educational materials); and
premier licenses allow “sensitive use rights,” unlimited indemnification, third-party rights transferability, use in merchandise and templates, and high-resolution unwatermarked comps.

VIII. Bottom Line

IX. Extra Credit: Are NFTs like Stock Photos or AI-Generated Images?

An NFT gives the owner a unique digital certificate of authenticity, which bestows certain usage rights to the owner (sometimes to commercialize the underlying content). The copyright is retained by the original creator of the work unless the license itself transfers it. The rights should exist so long as you own the NFT.

When you buy a non-fungible token (NFT), it’s more akin to buying a license to a stock photo (assuming the NFT was not generated by AI). NFT projects are all over the place with how their licenses work (sometimes there is none).

So, NFTs are somewhere between an AI-generated image and stock photos.

[Special thanks to Jane Perov and Sam Silverberg.]

Resources:

Images: All original images are AI-generated with using a combination of Dall-E, Firefly, DreamStudio and Pixlr.

Disclaimer: This post is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. This post reflects the current opinions of the author(s) only. The opinions reflected herein are subject to change without being updated.