Skip to main content
How Can We Help?
< All Topics
Print

Can a gallery or pr person/company use my artwork in AI generated publicity?

Updated

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in publicity, marketing and communications, including to write press releases, analyse images and generate new visual material. For artists, this creates new risks around copyright, control, attribution, confidentiality and the possible reuse of their work by third-party AI providers. Giving an image to a PR company for publicity does not necessarily mean agreeing to every possible AI use of that image, so it is important to understand what is being uploaded, why it is being used and what may happen to it afterwards.

Not automatically.

If you give a PR company images “for publicity” or “for PR”, that usually means they can use them for things like press releases, websites, social media and sending them to journalists.

Putting those images into an AI system may be a different kind of use. The AI company may process, store or analyse the images, and the PR company may be making another digital copy of your work when it uploads them.

Whether this is allowed will depend on what you agreed to and on the circumstances.

The safest approach is to make AI use clear in writing.

Is using AI to write a press release the same as putting my artwork into AI?

No.

There is an important difference between:

  • giving an AI tool basic facts about an exhibition and asking it to help draft a press release; and
  • uploading photographs of the actual artworks and asking the AI to analyse them.

The second situation raises more questions about copyright, privacy, confidentiality and how the AI company may use or keep the material.

There is an even bigger difference if the AI is asked to change the artwork or create new images from it.

Potentially.

Copyright gives artists control over certain uses of their work, including copying it.

Uploading an artwork to an AI platform can involve making and storing a digital copy.

Whether a PR company has permission to do that may depend on the wording of the agreement you have with them.

A general permission to “use images for publicity” may not clearly answer whether the images can also be uploaded to a third-party AI service.

Does an AI company always need my permission to analyse or train on my work?

Not necessarily.

Irish and EU copyright law allows certain forms of automated analysis, known as “text and data mining”, in some circumstances. These rules can be relevant to AI training.

Artists can reserve their rights and state that they do not want their work used for text and data mining. If you are supplying work privately — for example, sending photographs to a PR company — you can make this clear in writing, such as in a letter, email or agreement accompanying the images.

For example, you might state:

“These images are supplied solely for agreed publicity purposes. No permission is given for the works or images to be used for text and data mining, AI training, machine learning, generative AI or the development of AI models.”

The position is different for work that is already publicly available online. In that case, Irish law requires the reservation to be made in a machine-readable way, which can include metadata or the terms and conditions of a website or service.

If preventing AI training is important to you, it is sensible to make your wishes explicit rather than relying on a general restriction on use.

What if the AI changes my artwork?

That can raise extra concerns.

An AI tool might:

  • crop the work;
  • change colours;
  • extend the image;
  • remove parts of it;
  • add new elements;
  • create a new image based on it;
  • imitate the look of the work.

Irish law gives artists certain “moral rights” as well as copyright.

One of these rights can protect artists against changes to their work that would damage their reputation.

However, not every alteration is automatically unlawful. The exact circumstances matter, and moral rights can also be subject to exceptions, consent or waiver.

What if an AI-generated image is presented as if I made it?

That can be particularly problematic.

Artists have rights relating to false attribution.

For example, there may be an issue if an altered version of your work is presented as though it were your original, unchanged work.

There may also be serious reputational problems if an AI-generated image is described or presented in a way that makes people think you created it when you did not.

What if someone else took the photograph of my artwork?

The artwork and the photograph can have separate copyrights.

You may own the copyright in a painting, sculpture or other artwork, but a photographer may own copyright in the photograph they took of it.

There are exceptions, for example where the photographer is an employee or has transferred their rights.

So permission to use the artwork does not always mean there is permission to use the photograph in every possible way.

What about photos of work that has not been released yet?

Extra care is needed.

Artists often give PR companies images before an exhibition opens or before the work has been made public.

Uploading those images to an outside AI service may mean that another company is receiving and processing material that was supposed to remain confidential or under embargo.

Artists may want to ask:

  • Will unpublished work be uploaded to AI?
  • Will the AI company keep a copy?
  • Who can access it?
  • When will it be deleted?
  • Can it be reused for any other purpose?

Are there privacy or GDPR issues?

Sometimes.

GDPR becomes relevant where the material contains information about an identifiable living person.

For example, this could include:

  • photographs of the artist;
  • photographs of sitters or members of the public;
  • names and biographies;
  • contact details;
  • identifying information contained in files or metadata.

A photograph of a painting will not automatically create a GDPR issue simply because it is uploaded to AI. The question is whether personal information about an identifiable person is involved.

Does AI-generated publicity have to be labelled as AI?

Sometimes, but not always.

The EU AI Act contains transparency rules for certain kinds of AI-generated and AI-manipulated material.

For example, special rules can apply to “deepfakes” — realistic AI-generated or manipulated images, audio or video that could make people believe something is real when it is not.

There are also rules relating to some AI-generated text on matters of public interest.

However, this does not mean that every press release written with AI or every minor AI edit to an image has to carry an “AI-generated” label.

The circumstances matter.

Is it safer if the PR company uses a paid or business AI account?

It may be safer, but the label alone is not enough.

The PR company should check what the AI provider actually promises.

Important questions include:

  • Will the material be used to train the AI?
  • How long will it be kept?
  • Can it be deleted?
  • Is it shared with other companies?
  • What confidentiality protections apply?
  • Where is the data processed?

Artists should not assume that a product called “business”, “professional” or “enterprise” automatically gives all of these protections.

Can I tell a PR company not to use my work in AI?

Yes. You can make your instructions clear in your agreement with them.

For example, you could say that permission to use your images for publicity does not include permission to:

  • upload them to generative AI tools;
  • use them to train AI;
  • create AI-generated versions of the work;
  • alter the work using AI;
  • generate new images based on the work.

You could also allow some limited uses, such as using AI to help draft text, while still banning the use of your artwork as an AI input.

What should I ask a PR company before giving them images?

Useful questions include:

  • Will my artwork be uploaded to an AI system?
  • Which AI system will you use?
  • Why do you need to upload the artwork?
  • Will the AI company keep my images?
  • Can the images be used to train or improve an AI model?
  • Will AI be used to alter my work?
  • Will AI be used to create new images from my work?
  • Will I be asked to approve AI-generated material before it is published?
  • Will unpublished or confidential work be uploaded?
  • When will my material be deleted?

What is the simplest way to think about the risk?

There are roughly three levels.

Lower risk:
The PR company gives an AI tool basic facts and asks it to help draft text, without uploading your artwork.

More risk:
The PR company uploads your artwork so the AI can analyse it, describe it or write about it.

Higher risk:
The PR company uses your artwork to generate, alter or create new images.

None of these categories is automatically lawful or unlawful. The important point is that the risks increase as more of the artwork itself is given to the AI and as the AI is asked to do more with it.

What is a sensible approach for artists?

Ask about AI before supplying your work.

If you do not want your artwork uploaded to AI systems, say so clearly and in writing.

If you are happy for AI to be used only for limited purposes — for example, helping to draft a press release — make that clear too.

Where AI is being used, it is sensible to ask that:

  • only necessary material is uploaded;
  • confidential work is protected;
  • the AI provider does not use the material for training where this has been agreed;
  • AI-generated text is checked by a person;
  • AI-generated or altered images are not published without your approval.

Not for every PR arrangement.

But legal advice may be useful if:

  • valuable or commercially sensitive work is involved;
  • your work has been used in AI without your permission;
  • you want to stop your work being used for AI training;
  • an AI-generated image is being attributed to you;
  • your work has been altered in a way that concerns you;
  • there is a disagreement about what your PR agreement allows.

This FAQ is general information only and is not legal advice.

What about artwork I post on Facebook or Instagram?

Posting artwork on Facebook or Instagram is different from putting it on your own website because you do not control how the platform operates or which automated systems can access it.

Meta has stated that it uses public content shared by adults on Facebook and Instagram — including public posts, comments, photographs and captions — to help train its generative AI models in Europe.

If you are based in the EU/EEA, Meta provides a form allowing you to object to your public information being used for this AI training. The Irish Data Protection Commission recommends that users also review their privacy settings and, where appropriate, change public posts to private.

Artists who are concerned about AI use should therefore consider:

  • submitting Meta’s AI training objection;
  • reviewing which posts and images are publicly visible;
  • avoiding posting high-resolution files where they are not necessary;
  • keeping particularly sensitive, unpublished or commercially valuable work off public social-media posts; and
  • including a clear copyright and AI-use notice where appropriate.

A notice in a Facebook caption can help communicate your wishes, but it does not provide the same technical protection as controls on a website you own, and it should not be treated as a substitute for Meta’s own objection process.

For example, an artist might include:

© [Artist name]. All rights reserved. No permission is given for this work to be used for AI training, machine learning, text and data mining, dataset creation or generative AI without prior written permission.

However, putting such a statement in a Facebook post does not necessarily prevent Meta or another party from processing the content where they believe they have another lawful basis or applicable legal right to do so. The effectiveness of copyright reservations on third-party platforms can also depend on how those platforms make the reservation available in machine-readable form.

For important work, the safest practical approach remains to retain the authoritative high-resolution image on a website or storage system you control and use a smaller reproduction for social media.

Table of Contents