The use of artificial intelligence by fashion houses is redefining the boundaries between creativity, technology, and law. AI-generated images are increasingly integrated into luxury communication and design strategies, yet they raise new questions regarding intellectual property and rights ownership. This article examines the international, European, and Italian regulatory frameworks, with particular attention to authorship and originality, as well as the contractual implications of using generative platforms. It also highlights the necessity for fashion houses to adopt governance tools and internal policies that ensure transparency, control, and legal protection of AI-generated content. Artificial intelligence thus emerges as both a challenge and an opportunity for achieving a new balance between innovation and identity in the fashion system.
- Artificial Intelligence as a Creative and Productive Lever in the Fashion System
In recent years, artificial intelligence has increasingly become central to business processes, reshaping production models, communication strategies, and even domains traditionally linked to human creativity. Fashion and luxury houses are not exempt from this transformation: AI is now a cross-functional tool impacting multiple departments, from legal to production, from marketing to communications.
Beyond common applications – such as automated text generation or translation – generative technologies are increasingly used to optimize production chains, reduce material waste, and accelerate development times in ready-to-wear. Simultaneously, AI allows creative teams to design innovative visual campaigns, often without the need for external professionals, thereby preserving greater autonomy in constructing the brand’s visual identity.
However, the use of images generated by AI platforms raises increasingly relevant legal questions concerning intellectual property. Who owns the rights to content created by an algorithm? And how can human creativity be protected within an automated process? These questions define a new frontier for fashion law, which today must confront the challenges posed by artificial intelligence.
- The International Framework: Regulatory Uncertainty and Initial Positions
Globally, the legal protection of AI-generated works remains a highly uncertain area. Most jurisdictions continue to link the concept of “authorship” to a human creative contribution.
In the United States, the U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly affirmed that copyright protection presupposes a human act of creativity. In the District Court of Columbia case Thaler v. Perlmutter (August 18, 2023)[1], it was held that an artwork autonomously and entirely generated by AI cannot be copyrighted, as it is devoid of a human author. Accordingly, the Copyright Office clarified that a work in which AI functions as a “tool” in the hands of a human author may be protected, provided that the human contribution is sufficiently creative and controlling; in the AI Registration Guidance[2], generating content with AI often represents an initial or intermediate step, to which human authorship may be added in the final product. A human may organize or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative manner so that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.
In the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides an interesting exception: for computer-generated works “in the absence of an identifiable human author” copyright is granted to “person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the [creative] work are undertaken”[3]. This remains one of the few explicit recognitions of the user or programmer as a potential rights holder.
At the European level, legislation remains anchored to Directive 2001/29/EC and the notion of a work of authorship as a human intellectual creation. Nevertheless, European institutions have begun reflecting on the need to establish harmonized rules for managing content generated by AI systems, particularly in creative and advertising sectors.
- Application in the Italian Context: Challenges for the Fashion System
In Italy, the legal framework is primarily governed by the Copyright Law (Law 633/1941) and the Industrial Property Code (Legislative Decree 30/2005). Both laws, consistent with European principles, assume a human author as the rights holder. Consequently, an image generated exclusively by an AI platform cannot, under current law, enjoy strict copyright protection.
However, if a human user contributes creatively to generating the image – such as by selecting inputs, aesthetic parameters, composition, and intended use – protection as a derivative or composite work could be envisaged, with rights granted to the user limited to the original portion of their contribution[4].
For fashion houses, this scenario raises two fronts: 1) the need to assess risks of using content without authorization (for instance, prompts that replicate pre-existing copyrighted works); and 2) the protection of internally generated images, which can become integral to advertising campaigns, branding, or collection design.
The key issue is rights ownership: who holds copyright for an AI-generated image, the commissioning company, the person who created the prompt, or the software developer? In the absence of specific legislation, the answer can often be found in the platform’s terms of service. Some providers (e.g., OpenAI, Adobe, or Midjourney) grant users full ownership of generated content, while others impose more restrictive licenses.
Companies must carefully review the terms of use, which specify how content and prompts from public or shared galleries can be used. Platforms do not always automatically grant commercial exploitation rights, and in some cases, obtaining a specific license or prior authorization is necessary.
For images generated internally by employees or collaborators, the resulting asset is a product of in-house work, and the associated intellectual property rights – including economic exploitation – belong directly to the company, in accordance with employment or collaboration agreements. This approach provides fashion houses with greater control and security over creative outcomes, reducing uncertainties linked to externally generated content.
Ultimately, distinguishing between content generated via external platforms and content produced internally is crucial for proper legal and strategic management of AI. Human control, creative process traceability, and contractual clarity are now key tools for protecting rights while leveraging AI in corporate assets.
- Developments and Future Perspectives
The challenges for the fashion sector extend beyond rights ownership. With the upcoming implementation of the European AI Act[5], brands will need to comply with new obligations regarding transparency, traceability, and governance of AI systems, whether developed internally or via external platforms such as ChatGPT, Midjourney, or DALL·E.
For internal systems – AI models developed or integrated in-house – the company is directly responsible for risk classification, technical documentation, human oversight, and overall governance of the creative process.
The use of third-party systems also falls within the AI Act if the generated content is employed for business purposes. In this case, fashion houses must ensure that the system is secure, traceable, and properly used, documenting prompts, parameters, and intended purposes to guarantee auditability and regulatory compliance.
Crucially, the AI Act classifies AI systems by risk level: unacceptable, high, limited, or minimal. Even if many image-generation tools do not fall into the high-risk category, transparency and monitoring remain essential, particularly to allow legitimate rights holders, such as copyright owners, to exercise effective control over the use of their works in machine learning processes.
Fashion houses must establish internal policies, audit procedures, and periodic controls, while training both creative and legal teams. A strong internal culture around AI usage ensures regulatory compliance while transforming it into a competitive advantage, ensuring security, quality, and reliability of generated content.
Transparency and traceability obligations are not merely legal constraints but strategic opportunities: they demonstrate responsibility and integrity, reinforce consumer and partner trust, and allow technological innovation to integrate seamlessly with brand identity.
In short, the AI Act enables fashion houses to develop structured AI governance capable of harmonizing innovation, rights protection, and the enhancement of creative assets.
- Conclusions: Toward a New Culture of Assisted Creativity
The use of AI in fashion cannot be seen merely as technological innovation; it marks the emergence of a new culture of creativity, in which human and machine collaborate increasingly closely. For luxury fashion houses, the challenge is not only legal but also strategic and identity-driven.
Adopting clear internal policies governing platform usage, rights management, and process transparency has become an essential requirement. At the same time, the human role in the creative process remains central: machines can assist but cannot replace aesthetic sensitivity, stylistic coherence, and narrative capability, which form the core of every fashion house’s brand heritage.
Looking forward, the goal is not to limit AI use, but to manage it consciously, leveraging the potential of these powerful tools without losing the creative soul.
References:
[1] District Court of Columbia case Thaler v. Perlmutter of August 18, 2023 (https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf).
[2] Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/).
[3] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, chapter 1, par. 267, (3) “In the case of a design generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author, the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of thee design are made shall be taken to be the author” (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48).
[4] CF news online legal journal, article on “Plagio, intelligenza artificiale e diritto d’autore” (https://www.cfnews.it/societ%C3%A0-e-impresa/plagio-intelligenza-artificiale-e-diritto-dautore/?utm_source=chatgpt.com).
[5] “EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence” (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence).
About Author:
Ms. Irene Marullo Iantosca, she is an independent legal professional based in Rome, with a solid background in Fashion Law, Intellectual Property, and Communication. She has developed her expertise within renowned Italian luxury Maisons, working on contract negotiation, IP protection, the legal organization of events – including fashion shows and special projects – and communication activities such as photo shoots and social media. She now supports clients in the fashion and creative industries through her freelance practice.
