Legal Expert Interview: The Legal and Ethical Boundaries of AI-Generated Design

1. Background

This expert interview was conducted with lawyer Mr. Luo, focusing on key issues such as copyright ownership, infringement and portrait rights, data consent and compliance, and brand accountability in the context of AI-generated content.
The purpose was to understand, from a legal and ethical perspective, how concepts such as “authorship,” “originality,” and “responsibility” are defined when AI participates in creative and branding processes—thereby expanding the institutional dimension of my research on AI and the Human Touch.

2. Analytical Framework

Using content analysis, the interview data was categorized into four thematic units, each representing a major legal–ethical dimension:

1️⃣ Authorship and Copyright
2️⃣ Infringement and Portrait Rights
3️⃣ Data Consent and Compliance
4️⃣ Brand Accountability and Labelling

3. Theme One: Authorship and Copyright

Key Points:

• There is currently no global consensus on whether AI-generated works can hold copyright.
• In China, the prevailing view is that copyright depends on the degree of “human creative involvement.”
  “If a person merely inputs prompts without substantive creative control, it is not recognized as a copyrightable work.
  However, if post-generation editing and aesthetic judgement demonstrate human creativity, it may qualify as a work.”
  
• In contrast, U.S. law generally views AI as a tool, with outputs lacking authorship status.

Analytical Insight:

The degree of human creative labour determines whether AI-generated visuals are legally recognized as original works.
This suggests that human intention, judgement, and authorship remain essential to both the legal and cultural value of AI-assisted design.

4. Theme Two: Infringement and Portrait Rights

Key Points:

• Even if AI-generated content is not protected by copyright, it may infringe other rights such as image or privacy rights.
  For instance, using publicly scraped images to generate look-alike portraits constitutes infringement, not imitation.
  “The issue is not plagiarism but infringement—it violates the rights of others.”
  
• If an AI system uses training data or model images without explicit authorization—even if purchased through agencies—it may still be unlawful.

Analytical Insight:

Legal assessment focuses not on what AI creates but on whose data it uses.
For designers and brands, data transparency and licensed usage are the first layer of ethical and legal accountability.

5. Theme Three: Data Consent and Compliance

Key Points:

• Data usage must comply with relevant local and international laws (e.g., UK Data Protection Act, EU GDPR, and China’s Generative AI Regulation).
• All data processing must be based on informed consent, specifying:
  • The purpose of use;
  • Whether third-party transfer is permitted;
  • The final data user and disclosure scope.
• Even agency-based model contracts must include explicit consent for secondary use and AI retraining.

Analytical Insight:

The principle of informed consent is central to lawful AI practice.
For creative industries, this means every AI-generated visual must be traceable to transparent and authorized data sources, ensuring both ethical and legal legitimacy.

6. Theme Four: Brand Accountability and Labelling

Key Points:

• Under China’s Administrative Measures for Generative AI Services, all AI-generated content must be clearly labelled:
  “This content was generated by AI.”
  
• From a brand perspective:
  • When purchasing AI-generated visuals, companies must verify copyright and intellectual property validity;
  • When purchasing AI-generation systems or services, they must verify data legality and algorithm compliance.
• The brand’s responsibility lies in risk prevention and transparency.

Analytical Insight:

AI labelling functions not only as a legal requirement but also as an ethical signal.
Proactively disclosing AI participation strengthens public trust and enhances the brand’s cultural credibility and social accountability.

7. Integrated Analysis and Key Insights

Theme	Legal Focus	Implication for Design & Branding
Authorship	Proof of human creative contribution	Human involvement determines originality and legal protection
Infringement & Portrait Rights	Legitimacy of data use	Trace data origin to avoid misuse and privacy violations
Data Compliance	Informed consent and transparency	Ensure all AI data usage is authorized and traceable
Brand Accountability	Disclosure and risk management	Transparent labelling reinforces brand trust and responsibility

8. Reflection

This interview deepened my understanding that:

• AI-generated design is not only an artistic or technical issue but also a legal and ethical frontier;
• The sustainability of AI in creative industries depends on three principles: human participation, data transparency, and corporate responsibility;
• These insights directly connect to my research theme—showing that even in an algorithmic era, human judgement and moral intention remain central to the perceived authenticity and emotional warmth of creative work.

✳️ Key Takeaways

• Human creative contribution remains the legal basis for copyright in AI-generated works.
• Major risks arise from unlicensed data use and unclear authorization chains.
• Data compliance relies on informed consent and transparent documentation.
• Brands must clearly label AI-generated content to build trust and accountability.
• Legal compliance and ethical awareness together form the foundation of responsible AI design.