The main point first
The question «who owns the rights to an AI picture» splits into two different questions, and people constantly mix them up.
The first: is this picture protected at all. The second: if it is protected, who owns the rights.
The answer to the first under Russian law is this: the AI has no rights whatsoever. Only a human can be an author; that is built into the law. A machine is not a citizen, it has no will and no creative labour, so it cannot be an author.
Does that mean the rights are automatically yours? Not always. And this is where the most important part begins.
The key phrase: creative contribution
Rights arise not for whoever pressed the button but for whoever put creative work into the result.
Russian law protects the result of a human’s creative activity. If your involvement came down to one short prompt and one click, there is little creative work in the legal sense. Such a picture most likely cannot be protected: formally it is the result of a tool’s work, not your authored result.
But if you:
- thought through the composition, changed the prompt many times, selected from dozens of variants,
- refined the result: retouching, editing, combining several generations,
- used your own original image as the basis,
then your creative contribution is already noticeable, and the chances of protection are much higher.
The logic is simple: the more of you there is in the result, the more grounds there are to consider it your work. With this approach the AI is a brush, not an artist. If you want to understand why the model is a tool and not an author, see how generation works from the inside.
What the courts say
There is little case law so far; laws do not keep up with technology. But the direction is already readable, and it is logical.
Courts treat AI as a tool, not as an author. They recognise the rights of a human when that person can prove their creative contribution.
A telling example: in one case the court recognised the rights to an image for a person who proved that they first created the original 3D model and used AI only for the final processing. In other words, the court saw human work at the core and protected exactly that.
This gives a practical guideline: keep evidence of your involvement. Drafts, intermediate versions, prompt history. If it ever comes to a dispute, that is what will show you are the author and did not just press a button.
Can you make money on it
Yes. There is no direct ban on selling AI images, and the market does it on a mass scale: stock sites, advertising, covers, product cards.
But keep two risks soberly in mind.
Risk one: weak protection. Since authorship is disputable, your picture is easier to copy with impunity. A competitor takes it, and it is harder for you to prove the rights are yours. For a unique, valuable visual this matters; for everyday content it hardly does.
Risk two: someone else’s work inside. The model was trained on other people’s images. It usually creates something new, but sometimes it can reproduce a recognisable protected work or follow a specific artist too closely. If that happens and you publish it, the claim lands on you, not on the service.
A separate note on derivative work: if you yourself uploaded someone else’s protected photo and remade it with AI, that is already reworking someone else’s work without the rights holder’s consent. The risk there is direct and clear, and it has already been confirmed in one court case.
About terms of service
Who the service itself transfers rights to is written in its terms of service. Most services transfer the rights to the result to the user, but everyone’s conditions differ, and they are worth reading, especially if you plan commercial use.
It is important not to confuse two levels. The agreement decides whether the service lays claim to the picture. The question of protection (whether the picture is protected at all and whether you are recognised as the author) is decided by Russian law and your creative contribution, regardless of what the agreement says. One does not replace the other.
About imitating someone else’s style
A common question: can I ask for «in the style of such-and-such artist».
Style as a manner is not protected by copyright in itself. You cannot forbid painting impressionistically or in the spirit of noir. Problems begin when you:
- reproduce specific recognisable works, not just the manner,
- create an image that misleads people into thinking it is the work of a specific author or brand,
- copy the style of a living artist commercially, competing closely with them.
Imitating the classics and general movements is safer than imitating specific contemporary authors and protected brands. Common sense works better here than formal rules.
A checklist for peace of mind
- Add your own contribution. Refine, combine, select. The more of you in the result, the stronger your position.
- Keep traces of your work. Prompts, drafts, versions. That is your proof of authorship.
- Read the service’s licence if you sell the result.
- Do not rework other people’s protected images without permission.
- Be careful with living authors and brands.
- For important tasks, ask a lawyer. This article explains the logic but does not replace advice on your specific case.
On commercial use of AI video in advertising: can you use AI video for commercial purposes.
In short
AI has no rights: in Russia only a human can be an author. The rights to a picture can become yours, but only with a real creative contribution, not after a single click. Courts look at human work and protect it.
You can sell AI pictures, and everyone does, but mind two risks: weak protection against copying and possible claims over someone else’s content inside. Add your own contribution, keep proof of your involvement and do not touch other people’s protected work, and very little risk remains.
