Most design projects now reach a question that did not exist five years ago: did you use a generator for any of this? The unprepared designer answers badly, over-explaining a texture pass or going quiet about a hero image until the client finds it in a Content Credentials panel. An AI disclosure clause exists so the question gets answered once, in writing, before any work starts.
The clause is short and boring, which is the point. This page is not legal advice: have a lawyer in your jurisdiction read any clause before it goes into a signed agreement.
The short answer. An AI disclosure clause is a paragraph in a design contract stating which generative tools may be used, what must be disclosed to the client and when, and who owns and warrants the output. It replaces a post-delivery apology with a pre-project agreement and scopes the warranty of originality so one generated element cannot sink the deal.
Why a clause beats an apology
An apology happens after the fact, on the client's timetable, with the client holding the file. A clause happens before the fact, on your timetable, while the client still needs you. That is the entire difference.
A hypothetical: a client runs the delivered hero image through a verification tool, sees a generator in the manifest, and asks why nobody mentioned it. Every honest answer (it was a placeholder, textures are standard practice, the contract did not prohibit it) sounds like an excuse. With a clause that permits generative tools for texture and requires generated elements to be listed in the delivery note, there is nothing to discuss.
The three things an AI disclosure clause settles
Every clause worth signing does three jobs, and only three. Skip one and it will be argued about.
What generative tools may be used for
Be specific: "AI" covers everything from a spell checker to a prompt-to-mockup pipeline. The useful line is between exploration and deliverable: generators for moodboards and background fills, nothing generated in the logo, illustration style or typeface. Permitting "assistive use in exploration and production support" and restricting "generative use in final identity assets" covers most studio practice.
What must be disclosed and when
Disclosure at delivery is too late; the client has already approved the work. The better trigger is the first time a generated element enters something the client will review, as a line in the round-one notes: "the background in options B and C is generated; finals will be replaced or credited as agreed."
Who owns and warrants the output
This is the part lawyers care about and designers skip. A standard contract warrants that the work is original and does not infringe, a promise drafted for a world of drawn, photographed or licensed elements. Generated output does not fit: the designer did not author it, and the tool's terms decide what rights pass to the user. The clause has to say who owns generated elements (usually the client) and scope the warranty to what the designer can deliver.
Four ways to write it
There is no single right clause, only the right one for the job. The table sets out the four positions.
| Clause variant | What it protects | What it leaves open | When to use it |
|---|---|---|---|
| No clause | Nothing. The originality warranty covers everything, generated or not. | Permission, breach and ownership, all of it. | Only when an old contract cannot be amended. |
| Disclosure only | The relationship. The client learns what was generated and when. | Whether any particular use was allowed. The warranty is unscoped. | Small projects, repeat clients, work where nothing generated ships. |
| Disclosure plus restrictions | The relationship and the deliverable. Use is confined to named categories; the warranty is scoped to match. | Ambiguous categories (is a texture an asset?). Define them. | Most identity, campaign and editorial work. The studio default. |
| Prohibition | The client's registration and licensing position. Nothing generated ships. | Whether assistive features in standard software count. Say so. | Trademark-bound identity work, regulated sectors, clients whose policies ban it. |
Most contracts belong in the second or third row. A blanket ban sounds safe until you notice content-aware fill is built into the software you use.
Two clauses you can copy
The first covers what you do. The second obliges the client to say whether the brief or reference material was generated, because a generated logo handed over for a system build makes the ownership problem yours (AI-generated logos and who owns the file explains why). The clause builder assembles one with your own asset list.
Designer-side disclosure clause
Use of generative tools. The Designer may use generative or assistive software for research, exploration, placeholder content and production support. The Designer will not use generative tools to produce final identity assets (logos, wordmarks, illustrations or custom typefaces) unless the Client agrees in writing. Where a generated element is included in any deliverable presented for Client review, the Designer will identify it in the accompanying notes. The Designer's warranty of originality applies to work created by the Designer and to licensed third-party material, and excludes generated elements identified under this clause. The Client acknowledges that generated elements may not qualify for copyright registration and that the Designer gives no warranty as to their registrability.
Plain-language note: this is the "disclosure plus restrictions" row. It lets you use the tools for the boring parts, keeps them out of the parts a trademark lawyer cares about, and keeps the warranty honest.
Client-side disclosure clause
Client materials. The Client will inform the Designer in writing before work begins if any brief, reference image, mockup, draft copy or existing brand asset was produced in whole or in part with generative tools. The Client warrants that it has the right to supply such materials for the purposes of the Project. Where the Client supplies generated material for incorporation into a deliverable, the Designer's warranty of originality does not extend to that material, and the Client accepts that the resulting work may not be registrable in whole.
Plain-language note: use this whenever a client arrives with "something we already made". It moves the ownership and registration risk back to them and keeps the mockup out of the new unpaid pitch.
Both are starting points. Have a lawyer check them against what your rates, contract and scope terms already say about ownership and indemnity.
Registration and the warranty of originality
Here is why the warranty has to be scoped. In the United States, the Copyright Office's 2023 registration guidance states that material generated by a machine without sufficient human authorship is not registrable, and that applicants must disclaim generated portions when they apply. A logo with a generated element may be registrable only in part, or not at all. Details differ elsewhere, but the effect is the same: you cannot promise a clean registration on a file you did not fully author, so an unscoped warranty is at best uncertain and at worst false.
The fix is the sentence in the designer-side draft: the warranty covers what you made and licensed, and generated elements are carved out and named. A fully registrable mark also costs more than a fast, unregistered asset; the pillar on pricing and scoping generated work puts a number on that.
Disclosure, Content Credentials and the process note
A clause is a promise. It needs a mechanism, and two fit.
The first is Content Credentials. Adobe applications and other tools can attach a C2PA manifest to an exported file recording which application produced it and, where supported, whether generative features were used. Anyone can inspect it with the public Content Credentials verify tool, so it is one place your identification can live. Read what Content Credentials record and what they do not before relying on it, because a manifest can be stripped.
The second is the delivered process note: a short document shipped with the final files listing tools used, elements generated, elements licensed, and where the process files live. It costs twenty minutes. The clause creates the obligation; the manifest and the note discharge it.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need an AI disclosure clause if I never use generative tools?
Yes, as a statement that you do not. A client who cannot tell from the contract will assume the answer they prefer. One sentence saying final deliverables are produced without generative tools, with process files on request, is a selling point and a defence.
Should the clause name specific tools?
No. Tools change every quarter and the clause should not. Describe categories of use (exploration, placeholder content, production support, final assets) and let those do the work. If a client wants a particular tool excluded, add it as a schedule rather than editing the clause.
What if the client refuses to sign the client-side clause?
Then you have learned something useful. A client who will not say whether the brief was generated usually does not know, which is fine, or would rather you carried the risk, which is less fine. Offer to accept it as "unverified client material" with the carve-out intact.
Is a generated element always unregistrable?
No. The question is how much human authorship is in the final work. A generated background substantially reworked and composed with authored elements may support registration of the human-authored portions. The safe contractual position is to promise nothing either way, which is what the drafts do.
What to do on Monday
Find the warranty of originality in your standard agreement. If it is silent on generated material, it promises something you may not be able to deliver. Paste in an AI disclosure clause from the drafts above, adjust the asset list, and send it to a lawyer before it goes live.
Then read the rest of the Proof of Work series, starting with how to prove a design is yours. A clause that promises process files is only useful if they exist.