FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Interior designers
AI tools can produce designs that closely echo a recognisable designer's or brand's work, and using them can breach BIID clause 8(e) and prompt an infringement complaint. For interior designers, the risk is greatest in signature pieces, patterns and branded commercial schemes.
Part of: AI in Interior designers
In short
Image generators learn from huge amounts of existing work, so outputs can echo a known designer, brand or product closely. The RIBA AI Report 2026 found 76% of AI-using architecture practices agree AI increases the risk of imitation. BIID Code clause 8(e) says members must not knowingly copy another designer's work, and 1(a)(iv) requires avoiding copyright breaches in promotion. Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) dealt with the model, not with your use of an output. Avoid naming designers in prompts, check outputs, and confirm how your PI treats IP allegations.
Interior designers can meet imitation risk in several places:
The RIBA AI Report 2026 found 76% of AI-using architecture practices agree AI increases the risk of their work being imitated. The concern runs both ways: your work can be copied, and you can unintentionally copy others.
The BIID Code of Conduct (1 April 2026) does not mention AI, but clause 8(e) says members must not knowingly copy the work of another designer or accept client instructions to plagiarise. Clause 1(a)(iv) requires avoiding copyright breaches when promoting services, and 4(a) requires reasonable skill and care. A client request to "make it look like" a famous scheme does not remove the duty. See the BIID Code and AI guide.
In Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (November 2025), the High Court rejected Getty's secondary copyright infringement claims because the AI model was not an "infringing copy". It found limited trade mark infringement where early outputs reproduced Getty watermarks. Claims about training and outputs were dropped before judgment, so the court did not decide whether a particular output infringed.
For designers, the takeaway is narrow. The case concerned the model provider. It does not say that a designer who uses an output closely resembling protected work is safe, and it shows that branded marks appearing in outputs can matter.
Illustrative scenario. A designer generates a bespoke headboard and wallcovering for a boutique hotel using a prompt that names a well-known textile studio. The hotel's guests post photos online, and the studio writes alleging infringement of its pattern and asking for the product to be withdrawn. The hotel demands that the designer pay for replacement and any settlement, citing the warranty of originality in the appointment.
Designers' PI policies may include some cover for unintentional infringement of IP rights, though limits, exclusions and conditions vary. Cover is unlikely where the copying was deliberate, and a contractual warranty of originality may go beyond what the policy covers. Cyber policies may also respond to some content claims; the cyber and PI overlap on AI content guide explains where each might sit. See does PI cover AI and IP claims.
Imitation risk is higher on commercial work. Retail, hospitality and workplace clients often want a look that signals a category, and AI tools trained on published interiors can reproduce a competitor's recognisable features closely: a distinctive bar front, a signature tile pattern, a branded colour and material combination. Logos and marks can also appear in outputs, which the Getty judgment showed can raise trade mark issues.
Brand owners may monitor their look closely, and an allegation can arrive after the venue opens, when changes are most expensive. Agreements with commercial clients sometimes include warranties that the design is original and indemnities for third-party claims. Those promises sit outside the BIID Code but can turn an ordinary complaint into a large contractual claim. The AI-drafted contracts guide explains how to keep warranties within what you can give.
How Apex helps: Apex arranges PI for interior designers. A broker can review whether your policy covers IP infringement allegations from AI-assisted work and what conditions apply. See PI insurance for interior designers.
It can be. BIID clause 8(e) prohibits knowingly copying another designer's work. If you notice a close resemblance and use the output anyway, that is likely to be treated as knowing copying, and it may also infringe copyright or design rights.
No. The High Court found the model itself was not an infringing copy, but the output claims were dropped before judgment. Whether a specific output infringes someone's rights still depends on the facts.
Possibly, if the policy includes IP infringement cover and the infringement was unintentional. Deliberate copying and wide contractual warranties may fall outside cover, so check your wording and disclose your AI use.
Inspiration is normal, but BIID clause 8(e) says members must not accept instructions to plagiarise another designer's work. Use the reference to understand what the client likes, then develop an original scheme and explain why.
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.
