AI and copyright: what UK business owners need to know in 2026

The UK government has shelved plans to let AI companies train on copyrighted content. Here is what the current rules mean for your business.

The UK government spent much of 2024 and early 2025 consulting on a controversial proposal: allowing AI companies to train their models on copyrighted content unless rights holders actively opted out. It was a plan that attracted significant opposition from artists, writers, publishers, and the creative industry more broadly. In early 2026, the government stepped back from that approach.

That is the policy background. But for UK business owners using AI day to day, the more practical questions are simpler: what can you use AI-generated content for? Who owns what you create with AI? And where should you be careful?

This article covers the practical answers. It is not legal advice. For anything specific to your situation, speak to a solicitor.

What the government proposed and why it was shelved

The original proposal would have introduced a text and data mining exception in UK copyright law, allowing AI companies to train on any publicly available content by default. Rights holders could opt out, but the burden would have been on them to do so.

The opposition was substantial. Hundreds of artists and creative professionals signed open letters. Publishers argued it would devalue their content and undermine their ability to license it. Musicians and authors raised concerns about AI reproducing their style or voice without compensation.

The government consulted, listened, and ultimately did not proceed with the proposal in its original form. The UK's existing copyright law remained in place. That law is significantly more protective of rights holders than the proposed changes would have been.

What the current copyright law means for AI-generated content

Under current UK law, copyright protection generally requires a human author. The law does, however, include a specific provision for computer-generated works: where there is no human author, copyright belongs to "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken." In practice, that tends to mean the person or business that prompted and directed the AI.

This is not settled law. The courts have not yet tested many of the specific questions that AI raises, and legal interpretation will evolve. But the current working assumption, for most businesses using AI to generate content, is that you own what you create, provided there is no underlying copyright infringement in the AI's training data or output.

Can you use AI-generated images commercially?

This is where businesses most often run into uncertainty.

The practical answer is: it depends on the tool. Most major AI image tools, including the image generation features in ChatGPT, Canva, and Adobe Firefly, grant you commercial rights to images you generate through their platforms. You should check the terms of service for any tool you use, as these vary.

The area of genuine risk is AI-generated images that closely reproduce or imitate the identifiable style of a specific living artist, particularly if they have publicly objected to their work being used for AI training. While style itself is not copyrightable, creating something deliberately designed to look like a specific person's work, and then selling it, sits in uncomfortable territory legally and ethically.

For most standard commercial use, AI-generated images, logos, and illustrations are usable. Just check the platform's terms before using them in commercial contexts.

Who owns content you create with AI?

If you use Claude or ChatGPT to draft a blog post, write marketing copy, or produce a report, and you then edit and publish that content, you are the one who made the creative decisions. The AI is a tool, not a co-author. The content is yours.

The position becomes less clear if you publish content that is almost entirely AI-generated with minimal human input or creative direction. Some platforms, particularly in publishing and journalism, are beginning to require disclosure of significant AI involvement. That is a professional and editorial question as much as a legal one.

For UK business owners, the straightforward guidance is: use AI as a drafting and assistance tool, apply your own judgement and editing, and the result is yours.

Practical guidance for using AI safely

Do not instruct AI to reproduce specific copyrighted text. If you ask an AI to reproduce a book chapter, a full article from a publication, or lyrics from a song, that is copyright infringement, regardless of whether the AI is technically capable of doing it.

Be cautious with highly recognisable styles. Asking an AI to write "in the style of" a well-known living author or artist is legally grey. Doing so for commercial purposes is riskier.

Check image platform terms before commercial use. Different tools have different terms. Adobe Firefly is designed around commercial safety. Others may have restrictions. Read before you publish.

Keep records if it matters. If you are creating content that you intend to license or protect, keeping a record of the prompts and the process helps establish your role in creating it.

The law is still catching up. Much of AI and copyright in 2026 is unsettled. Legislation and case law will develop over the coming years. Stay informed, and for anything commercially significant, get proper legal advice.