FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Architects
An architect who uses AI as a tool usually keeps copyright in the resulting design, but purely computer-generated output may soon have no protection at all. With 76% of architects worried about imitation, ownership is now a live practice risk.
Part of: AI in Architects
In short
RIBA's AI Report 2026 found 76% of architects agree AI increases the risk of their work being imitated. In Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), secondary copyright claims failed because the model was not an "infringing copy". The Government's Report on Copyright and AI (18 March 2026) proposes removing protection for computer-generated works with no human author under CDPA s.9(3), while AI-assisted works keep protection. Architects' PI often includes some cover for unintentional IP infringement, subject to the wording.
Generative tools now produce plan options, facade studies, massing variations and concept images from prompts or parameters. They sit alongside the visualisation tools covered in AI renders and visualisations.
The profession's concern is clear. The RIBA AI Report 2026 found 76% agree AI increases the risk of work being imitated, up from 67% who worried about this in the 2025 report. RIBA lists intellectual property among the unresolved AI issues for the profession.
Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (first instance, November 2025). Getty dropped its training and output claims. The secondary copyright claims failed because the court held the Stable Diffusion model was not an "infringing copy". Limited trade mark infringement was found for watermarks appearing in outputs of early versions. A summary is available from SCL. The case says little directly about who owns a building design produced with AI.
Computer-generated works. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.9(3) currently gives protection to works generated by computer with no human author. The Government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (18 March 2026) proposes removing that protection. AI-assisted works, where a human makes the creative choices, keep protection. The report also drops a broad text and data mining exception with opt-out as the preferred option.
The Architects Code does not address copyright directly, but Standard 1.2 (accurate promotion) and 4.1 (clear written terms, including licences) are relevant. See the ARB and RIBA guide.
Illustrative scenario. A practice uses a generative tool to produce facade options for a competition and develops one into the winning scheme. A rival practice later says the facade closely resembles one of its published buildings, which it believes was in the tool's training data, and alleges infringement. Separately, the client wants to reuse the design on another site and asks whether the practice owns anything it can license.
Two exposures follow. The practice may face an infringement claim it cannot easily defend because it does not know what shaped the output. And if the design was mostly machine-generated, the practice's own ability to stop copying may be weaker, especially if the s.9(3) proposal becomes law.
Many architects' PI policies on a civil liability basis include cover for unintentional infringement of intellectual property rights arising from professional services, subject to the wording. Points to check:
See AI and IP infringement insurance and does architects' PI cover AI mistakes.
Back to the AI in architecture overview.
Apex arranges PI for architects. A broker can check how your policy treats intellectual property claims and whether AI-assisted design work raises any questions with insurers.
Where the architect makes the creative choices and uses AI as a tool, copyright usually belongs to the architect or practice, subject to contract. Purely computer-generated works currently have protection under CDPA s.9(3), but the Government proposed removing it in March 2026.
At first instance in November 2025, the High Court held the AI model was not an "infringing copy", so secondary copyright claims failed. Limited trade mark infringement was found for watermarks in early-version outputs. Getty had dropped its training and output claims.
Yes. Standard 4.1 requires clear written terms before work begins. An appointment can state who owns AI-assisted design work, what licence the client receives, and whether the practice may use AI tools, which avoids later disputes about reuse.
Often, where the policy covers unintentional IP infringement arising from professional services, subject to the wording. Deliberate copying is commonly excluded, and PI does not usually pay the practice's own losses when others imitate its work.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
