UKIPO Considers AI-Generated Design Protection in UK
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is currently exploring whether designs generated by artificial intelligence (AI) should be eligible for protection under UK law. The much-needed designs consultation runs for 12 weeks and closes on 27 November 2025. This is the first major designs consultation in the UK since 2011. As generative AI tools become more sophisticated and more widely used, questions around authorship, ownership and liability are pushing the UK's legal and policy frameworks into a period of significant review.
Existing Legal Framework
Under current UK law, design protection falls under a number of different rights regimes which are difficult to navigate: registered designs, unregistered designs, supplementary unregistered design rights and copyright. Together, these regimes protect the appearance of products (2D or 3D), including features like lines, texture, shape, contours and ornamentation, but each has a different duration of protection.
Crucially, there already exists some provisions concerning computer-generated designs. The Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA) and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) provide that where a design is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author, the person who made the arrangements for the design's creation is treated as the "author" or "designer." However, these sections have been little tested, and it remains unclear how they apply in increasingly autonomous AI settings.
UKIPO Consultation
The UKIPO has launched a consultation and review to assess whether these existing laws are sufficient in light of AI's growing role, or whether substantial reforms are needed.
Key issues under consideration include:
1. Authorship and Ownership
If an AI system designs something autonomously, who is the legal author? The person who owns or runs the AI? The developer? Or the user who provided input? Under current UK law, the "person who made arrangements" is regarded as author in cases of fully computer-generated works. However, as AI systems become more intelligent and potentially less human-directed, this formula may no longer be seen as adequate.
2. Protection of Computer-Generated Designs Without Human Authors
Whether design law should continue to protect those designs, remove protection, or impose different rules if the human input is minimal or only indirect.
3. Liability and Infringement
Who should be held liable if a design generated by AI infringes someone else's rights? Can AI itself be liable, or should liability rest with humans: the operator, developer, or the user who prompts the system?
4. Impact on Human Creators and Innovation
Concerns are being raised that if AI-generated designs are heavily protected, human designers may find it harder to satisfy novelty or individuality requirements due to the flood of AI output. In addition, issues of "design trolling" (registering many designs via AI without serious intention to use) are being debated.
Government Response So Far
The consultation has revealed a broad sense among stakeholders that while AI tools are valuable, the law's recognition of AI itself as an author or owner is deeply problematic due to legal personality issues. Most respondents feel AI should not be recognised as a legal author or owner.
One respondent argued that, as design rights seek to encourage and reward innovation, and AI does not require these incentives, it would be inappropriate for AI to own a design. (gov.uk)
Some respondents commented that AI tools have the ability to create a large number of designs in a very short period of time, and that this could result in large numbers of designs being held by bad actors, which could inhibit innovation. (gov.uk)
Some respondents felt this provision [in the RDA, for computer-generated works] was adequate to deal with AI-generated designs. Others suggested that it could result in confusion about who owned the design created - the supplier of the AI system or the person who provided the data which resulted in the design.
The government's response has generally been cautious. It acknowledges that current legislation is mostly "fit for purpose" in may respects, but also recognises that rapid advances in AI could require changes down the line. At present, no firm move has been made to overhaul design law, though several options are being considered.
Possible Paths Forward
A few of the options under discussion include:
- Retaining existing protections for computer-generated designs, but clarifying when they apply.
- Reforming the protections to require a certain level of human input before eligibility.
- Removing protection for designs that are generated without meaningful human involvement.
Why It Matters
For designers, artists, brands, tech companies and those developing AI, the outcomes of this consultation could significantly affect how risks and rewards are allocated. If protections are too weak, creators might be under-compensated; if too broad, it may stifle innovation or flood registries with AI-produced works that dilute what is "novel" or "individual." Legal clarity is needed to guide investments, collaborations, and disputes.
Accordingly, the UKIPO is navigating a delicate balance between supporting innovation and the use of AI while protecting human creativity and ensuring fairness in the intellectual property system. While the law currently offers some protection for AI-involved design, the evolving nature of AI means that stakeholders and policymakers alike must stay alert. Changes may be coming, but for now, the prevailing view seems to be that AI should remain a tool rather than becoming a legal author in its own right.
Make an Enquiry Now
For advice on AI-generated design protection in the UK, or how to protect your human-created designs, call our intellectual property experts on 0131 478 4724 or complete an Online Enquiry.
We have helped hundreds of individuals and businesses.
Please note the contents of this blog is given for information only and must not be relied upon. Legal advice should always be sought in relation to your specific circumstances.
