The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how cultural and entertainment content is created and produced. Today, AI tools are widely used in generating text, music, visual art, and audiovisual works. In this landscape, it has become common for companies to commission materials from outsourced production teams that employ these technologies. However, this practice carries significant compliance risks, such as data leaks and intellectual property infringement.
A simple contractual clause requiring the vendor to “assume all legal liability arising from the use of AI tools” is insufficient given the complexity of the risks involved. It is essential to establish a comprehensive framework for preventing and controlling legal risks in artificial intelligence applications.
Tool Access and Licensing Requirements
Commercial contracts should require suppliers to use only secure, regulation-compliant AI tools with valid commercial licenses. This safeguard protects the commissioning party against penalties, infringement claims, or usage restrictions if the tool’s legality or rights status proves flawed.
Contractors must ensure that the AI tool and its underlying foundation model have a lawful origin. It is advisable to select systems that have undergone security evaluations and statutory algorithm registrations. Foreign tools require even tighter oversight, as using services that fail to meet regulatory standards exposes the commissioning company to compliance risks.
Before deploying any AI tool, the contractor should disclose its name and version, and carefully review its terms of service. The primary focus should be on provisions regarding intellectual property ownership of generated outputs and rights restrictions, ensuring they hold a full commercial license from the technology provider.
Data Segregation and Security Clauses
Prompts and reference materials are the starting point of AI creation, but they are also the primary source of data leaks and third-party infringements. To mitigate this risk, contracts should include specific data protection clauses governing system inputs.
- Trade secret protection: Prohibit entering business secrets and confidential assets directly into external, public, or non-privately deployed AI tools for training, testing, or content generation purposes.
- Personal data protection: Bar using an individual’s image, voice, private information, or personal data in AI tools without prior, separate consent from the rights holder.
- Third-party information: Prohibit feeding systems with sensitive information belonging to third parties.
Review of Generated Content and Duty of Care
Given the nature of the technology, AI-generated content can present unpredictable infringement risks. When evaluating liability, administrative and judicial authorities typically focus on whether the company fulfilled the standard duty of care expected of a prudent commercial operator. Because the commissioning party is the rights holder, user, final publisher, and beneficiary of the content, it cannot blindly rely on the contractor’s promise to assume liability for any violations.
To demonstrate reasonable diligence, companies should establish an internal content review mechanism. In practice, this involves applying the “access and substantial similarity” test, reviewing supplier deliverables independently and rigorously.
Authorship and the Requirement of Human Intervention
Legal practice and statutory frameworks require protected works to be the result of human intellectual labor. When an AI tool produces an output autonomously without subsequent human rework, its originality may not be legally recognized.
Therefore, the contract should contain a substantive human processing clause, preventing the vendor from delivering raw AI outputs that have not been reworked by a human. Additionally, the terms of service of many mainstream platforms impose various restrictions on ownership and licensing of generated content. Some platforms require users to grant licenses for model training or restrict exclusive ownership of the output.
To prevent platform rules from leaving parts of the contractor’s deliverables without exclusive ownership, contracts should require the vendor to disclose platform IP terms and ensure that rights to the work are effectively assigned to the client.
Record Retention and Technological Evidence
The probabilistic nature of artificial intelligence and the opacity of its generation process mean that establishing facts post hoc often faces high technical evidentiary hurdles. For this reason, suppliers should be required to preserve complete technical logs of their AI usage, including access histories, prompts used, and file versions.
Practical Takeaway
Outsourcing content creation using artificial intelligence requires a sophisticated contractual approach. Companies commissioning audiovisual works, text, or visual art must audit the tools used, enforce strict rules against entering confidential data, and ensure sufficient human intervention to protect copyright. Structuring these controls beforehand is the most reliable way to harness AI efficiency without compromising corporate compliance.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.
