The Chain of Title in the Age of AI. Why movies, TV shows, and advertising campaigns are at risk of a new rights crisis.
For decades, in the audiovisual and advertising industries, the concept of the chain of title has been a simple yet fundamental rule: every right used in a project must be traceable, without interruption, to its rightful owner. Screenplays, music, photographs, graphic works, artistic performances, trademarks, formats, and publishing rights must be traceable, authorized, and contractually covered.
Today, however, the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence is undermining this very principle. And the problem isn’t limited to copyright. It affects project financing, international distribution, insurance coverage, streaming platforms, and, looking ahead, the marketability of creative works themselves.
In the media and entertainment industry, the chain of title refers to the documentation used to prove legitimate ownership of the rights necessary to exploit a work. In other words, anyone producing a film or series must be able to demonstrate that they have properly acquired all rights related to the content used. Traditionally, this process is based on assignment agreements, options, releases, licenses, and authorizations granted by authors, artists, publishers, and producers. The goal is to prevent a party from emerging years after a work’s release to claim unauthorized rights or make unauthorized uses.
With generative AI, however, this linearity begins to disappear.
Many AI systems are trained on massive amounts of data sourced from the web: images, photographs, illustrations, scripts, voice samples, articles, audiovisual content, and copyrighted material. In most cases, users of these tools have no real knowledge of the origin of the datasets, any existing licenses, or how the content was collected. This creates a fundamental problem. If AI-generated content incorporates, replicates, or references protected elements from the training data, the rights chain risks becoming opaque or even untraceable. And in the audiovisual sector, this opacity poses a huge risk.
One of the most common misconceptions is the belief that simply using an AI platform automatically grants the user full legal ownership of the output. In reality, the situation is much more complex. It is necessary to distinguish between ownership of the output, the licensing terms of the platform used, any rights that may exist over the training datasets, and the rights of third parties that could be invoked by the generated content. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, including various European and U.S. legal frameworks, content generated purely by AI may not even qualify for full copyright protection in the absence of a sufficiently qualified human creative contribution.
This means that a producer could end up with a work that is difficult to protect, with incomplete rights, or, worse still, with a chain of title that cannot be fully verified.
In the international audiovisual industry, virtually no major distribution deal is made without Errors & Omissions(E&O) coverage. E&O insurance is designed to cover copyright infringements, unauthorized use, defamation, invasions of privacy, and disputes over rights ownership. The problem is that many insurance companies are beginning to treat AI-generated content as a high-risk area. In some cases, specific disclosures regarding AI usage, audits of creative workflows, or coverage limitations related to certain generative tools are being required. The same phenomenon is occurring with international broadcasters, streamers, and distributors, who are beginning to demand increasingly detailed contractual guarantees regarding the origin of content and the absence of illicit training.
In practice, traditional IP due diligence is evolving into full-fledged technology due diligence.
The impact of AI extends beyond images and promotional materials. The most sensitive areas include screenplays developed using generative tools, AI-generated concept art, storyboards, voice cloning, synthetic dubbing, digital reconstructions of performers, and music generated using models trained on existing catalogs. Each of these cases raises new and complex questions. Who is the actual author of the work? Which rights need to be cleared? What consents are required? Can the output be commercially exploited without risk? Can the AI platform reuse the inputs provided by the producer? Are there union or contractual restrictions regarding the use of synthetic performers or artificial voices?
These are questions that simply didn’t exist just a few years ago.
In this scenario, the contract once again takes on a central role. More structured productions are already introducing clauses addressing the permitted use of AI tools, disclosure obligations, guarantees regarding the lawfulness of datasets, the allocation of IP risk, and indemnification obligations in the event of disputes. Creative agencies and advertising production companies are also beginning to thoroughly review their contract templates.
Because the real risk is not merely the potential infringement of a right. The real risk is no longer being able to prove with certainty the legitimate origin of the work.
For years, the media industry has focused primarily on creativity. Today, however, the economic value of works depends increasingly on their legal and technological traceability. In the near future, the ability to demonstrate how content was created, what tools were used, what datasets were involved, what rights were cleared, and what human contributions were made will likely become an integral part of the work’s value itself.
The chain of title, once a mere documentary formality, is evolving into a complex system for verifying creative origin. And artificial intelligence risks turning it into the new nerve center of international media litigation.