Should You Add an Anti-AI Clause to Your Creative Contracts?

By Mandy Corcoran — surface pattern designer and former tech instructor. I build the tools I teach, including PatternPAL Pro. 

An anti-AI clause is contract language that tells a client what they may not do with your work after delivery. It prohibits uploading your art into AI tools, using it to train models, or generating imitations of your style unless you grant separate written permission and a separately negotiated fee.

Things are changing faster than ever and, if you're anything like me, you probably feel behind. My sense of FOMO over the latest and greatest AI trends is very real. So is my desire to protect myself and my work.

There is a lot of discussion surrounding the use of AI. It's so new and developing so quickly that no one had time to pre-game. We're all making it up as we go.

And that's really stressful. 

Since there aren't a lot of legal boundaries out there to protect you, you have to do some of this yourself. So, the next time you get a contract, check to see if it includes anything about AI-use BY YOUR CLIENT.

That's right. Your client.

Your client is likely protecting their own interests, but you need to protect yours. Consider adding an anti-AI clause for your clients to your contracts.

What is an Anti-AI Clause?

If you create digital content—patterns, illustrations, photographs, videos, music, written work, brand assets, course materials, or anything else that can be downloaded or uploaded—this is a conversation worth having with your clients.

An anti-AI clause tells a client what they may not do with your work after you deliver it. You need to make it clear that a license to use your art on a product, website, ad, or social post is not also permission to feed that work into an AI tool, use it to train a model, or generate new work that imitates it.

You can find many versions of this language online. The example below is one I had Claude help me draft.

Important: This is sample contract language, not legal advice. Contracts, copyright rules, and enforceability vary by jurisdiction and situation. Have an attorney review any clause before you use it.

Sample Anti-AI Contract Language: Restrictions on Artificial Intelligence Use

Licensor reserves all rights not expressly granted. Licensee shall not, and shall not authorize, permit, sublicense, or assist any third party to:

(a) use the Licensed Work, any portion of it, any derivative, or any associated metadata as training data, input, fine-tuning material, evaluation data, an embedding source, or dataset content for any artificial intelligence system, machine-learning model, neural network, LoRA, or generative tool, whether now existing or later developed;

(b) scrape, mine, upload, or ingest the Licensed Work into any database, model, or service designed to generate or simulate images, styles, compositions, voices, text, or likenesses; or

(c) use Licensor’s name, signature, voice, likeness, or the style of the Licensed Work as a prompt, tag, or identifier to generate synthetic works.

Any such use requires Licensor’s prior written permission under a separate license and for a separately negotiated fee. Licensee shall impose these restrictions on all permitted sublicensees and downstream users. These restrictions survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

Can't My Client Use My Files However They Want?

Not usually. The opening sentence: licensor reserves all rights not expressly granted, establishes the basic idea behind a limited license. A client receives only the rights specifically listed in the contract. All the other rights stay with the creator.

This is important because a client might assume that paying for a digital file means they can use it in any way they choose. There is a big difference between owning a copy of the file and receiving permission to use the creative work in particular ways.

Your definitions also need to be consistent. If the rest of your agreement calls you the “Artist,” “Designer,” or “Creator” instead of the “Licensor,” update this clause to match. The same goes for “Licensee,” “Client,” and “Licensed Work.”

What Happens When My Client Share My Files With Manufacturers and Vendors?

Step one is figuring out what your client can do with your files. But that's not the whole picture.

Let's say you license a collection to a home decor brand. That brand might send your files to a manufacturer, a marketing agency, a printer, a distributor, a virtual assistant, a freelancer, or some platform you've never heard of. Every one of those is another set of hands on your art.

Including language like: Shall not authorize, permit, sublicense, or assist any third party, is designed to stop your client from handing someone else permission to do something they couldn't do themselves. (If your client can't feed your art into an AI tool, they can't hire a VA to do it for them either. Loophole closed.)

It also kicks off a conversation you should have with your client: Who is going to work with or get a copy of my files, and what systems will those people use?

A client may need to share your files. That's totally fine and normal in most cases. I mean, manufacturers do need files to print the product, right? What you want to do is hold any other parties to the same AI restrictions you set for your client.

Permission to share doesn't mean permission to do everything, all of it. Define the sharing, and keep the AI rules attached to the files wherever they go.

How Do I Protect My File From Being Used to Train AI?

Section (a) lists the ways your creative work could be used in AI development or operation: training, fine-tuning, evaluation, embeddings, datasets, and direct input into a generative tool.

Why so many words? Because just staying "the client may not use AI" means different things to different people.

Let's say one client hears that and thinks only of training a giant commercial model. Fair enough. Another client pastes your design into a generative fill tool to make a few variations. Another uploads it to a private brand AI model. Neither of them thinks of that as "training," so neither thinks they broke the rule. 

Citing specific uses gives you something concrete to point at. It makes the boundary easier to talk about.

You'll also notice the phrase "whether now existing or later developed." That's there so the clause doesn't go stale every time the technology changes. (And it changes constantly.)

Be careful here. Using broad language can cause its own problems. Plenty of clients use software with AI features baked. From Microsoft Word to Notion to Photoshop, AI is almost unavoidable in regular editing, search, storage, accessibility, or security tools. If your clause bans every AI-assisted process, you may accidentally block tools that are necessary for your client and render your designs unusable. 

So decide what you want to prohibit. Is it really every AI-assisted process? Or only the uses that train models, generate new content, imitate your work, or expose it to third-party systems?

What I would do is get clear on that answer first, then have an attorney help you tailor the scope. You want a clause that protects your art without tripping over the everyday tools your clients already use.

Can I Protect Portions of My File or Just the Final File?

A restriction that applies only to the final, full-resolution file may leave obvious gaps. Someone could crop the work, separate individual motifs, alter the colors, remove a signature, or create a modified version.

Including portions, derivatives, and metadata is intended to cover more than the untouched final file. For digital artists, metadata may contain titles, descriptions, keywords, authorship information, or other details connected to the work.

This is also a good place to check how your contract defines “Licensed Work.” Does it include sketches, source files, unused concepts, alternate colorways, drafts, audio stems, raw footage, or only the approved final deliverables? The protection is clearer when the definition matches what you actually create and share.

Does a Contract Stop AI Scraping of My Public Work?

Section (b) shifts the focus from what the AI does to what a person does with the phrase: scraping, mining, uploading, and ingesting. Think uploading, pasting, feeding, or adding your art to a database, a model, or a generative service.

"Training" isn't the only use you might want to control.

Let's say your art gets uploaded as a reference image. Or added to a retrieval database so a tool can pull from it later. Or used to generate a dozen variations. Or dropped into a system built to mimic a particular look, whether that's your style of florals or your writing voice. None of those has to involve training a model, and every one of them is still your work going somewhere you didn't agree to.

You may want to make it clear that the restriction kicks in at the moment of upload or ingestion. Not after a model has been trained. Not after a synthetic version of your work exists. The moment your file goes in.

Remember, once it's in, it's much harder to get back out. So draw the line at the door.

Can I Protect My Style, Voice, or Other Brand-Specific Things?

Your art isn't the only thing with value. Your professional identity matters, too. Your style, the thing that makes a buyer say "oh, that's definitely her work," took you time to develop.

Let's say a client types "in the style of [your name]" into a generative tool. Maybe they didn't even upload one of your designs. They just used your reputation to get what they wanted without paying for it.

This sentence makes the client's contractual obligation clear. (What copyright or other laws will protect on their own can vary depending on the facts and where you live, which is exactly why you want it spelled out in the contract.)

Now, you don't have to keep every term on that list. If something doesn't apply to your work, remove it. An illustrator might care most about a signature and visual style. A voice actor will probably care more about voice and likeness. A writer may want language covering their name, characters, fictional worlds, or written voice.

The clause should fit your work, not collect every possible term. Go through the list and keep only what you'd actually need to have protected.

Can I License AI Rights Later for an Extra Fee?

If you are open to licensing AI rights later, think about including a line about that like: prior written permission, a separate license, and a separate fee. Including that line doesn't say an AI-related use can never happen. It says that use is not included in the current deal. Big difference.

 If a client later wants AI rights, they have to ask. And once they ask, you're in the driver's seat. You can say no. You can say yes with conditions. You can limit the use. You can negotiate a fee that reflects the extra value and risk you'd be taking on.

Let's say you license a collection to a stationery brand for a product line. A year later, they decide they'd love to use your art in an AI tool for marketing visuals. Without this language, they might assume it's covered. With it, they have to come back to you and have a conversation (and probably open their wallet).

That's why the "separate license" wording is so useful. Nobody should get your AI rights by accident.

And if you ever do decide to grant them, the agreement can spell out the details:

• The exact model or platform
• The purpose
• The duration
• Security requirements
• Permitted outputs
• Ownership questions
• Deletion requirements
• Compensation

You're not closing the door. You're making sure anyone who wants to come through it has to knock first.

Who Else Touches My File, and How Do I Protect It Then?

Your client can follow the restriction perfectly and your art can still end up somewhere it shouldn't. Why? Because they might send it to another company that has no idea the rule exists.

That's why it's important to require the client pass the restriction along to anyone farther down the production chain. That's what downstream users means. 

Let's say you license a collection to a home decor brand. They send the files to a manufacturer, who sends them to a printer, who hands them to a freelancer for mockups. If nobody ever told the freelancer about your AI restriction, that freelancer has no reason to follow it. (Not because they're sneaky. They just never heard about it.)

This matters most when you're licensing work for manufacturing, publishing, advertising, or distribution, because those deals involve a lot of hands. So ask:

• Who are the downstream users?
• Will they receive copies of the work?
• How will the client make sure they know about the restriction?

What Happens to My Art After the License Expires?

Creative licenses usually end. The client’s right to manufacture a product may last two years, or a campaign may run for six months.

Without survival language, someone could argue that the AI restriction ended when the rest of the license ended. This final sentence is intended to keep the restriction in effect afterward.

You may also want an attorney to consider related terms about returning or deleting files, confirming deletion, reporting unauthorized use, and handling a security breach.

What Should I Decide Before Adding an Anti-AI Clause?

Before copying any sample clause into your agreement, think through what you actually want it to accomplish:

1. Do you want to prohibit all AI-assisted use, or only training, generation, imitation, and external uploads?
2. Are there editing or business tools with AI features that you are comfortable allowing?
3. Does the clause cover every file you share, including drafts and source files?
4. May the client share your files with manufacturers or contractors? If so, which ones?
5. Must vendors agree in writing to the same restrictions?
6. Would you ever license a specific AI use for an additional fee, or is it a firm no?
7. What should happen if your work is uploaded or used without permission?
8. Should the client notify you if it discovers an unauthorized use or data breach?
9. Do any terms elsewhere in the contract conflict with this restriction?

That last question is easy to miss. A beautifully written anti-AI clause will not help much if another section gives the client extremely broad rights to modify, create derivatives, sublicense, or use the work in any media for any purpose. The whole agreement needs to work together.

The Bigger Value May Be the Conversation

Even if a client has no intention of using your work with AI, including the subject in your contract makes both sides stop and define the boundary.

You can ask:

- Will my files be uploaded to any AI-enabled platforms?
- Will they be used to generate variations, extensions, or new assets?
- Who else will receive them?
- What do your vendors’ terms say about uploaded content?
- Can you agree in writing that my work will not be used for model training or synthetic content?

Those are reasonable questions for anyone licensing valuable digital work. They also help prevent the awkward situation in which you and the client discover—after the project is underway—that you both made different assumptions.

AI technology and the legal questions around training, licensing, copyright, and digital replicas are still developing. The U.S. Copyright Office maintains an Artificial Intelligence initiative and report series, if you want to follow the broader policy discussion.

The goal is not to paste the longest, scariest clause you can find into every contract. It is to decide what uses you are willing to grant, put those boundaries in writing, and have the conversation before you send the final files.

Then take the draft to an attorney who understands intellectual property and creative licensing and ask them to make it fit your business.

If you want to know how you can use AI ethically in your own business, register (for free) for Creative Systems Lab Session 1. I'll show you how to work with AI to help you run your business. Never make the art.