FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Landscape architects
AI-assisted landscape designs usually keep copyright protection where a human makes the creative choices, but purely computer-generated work may lose it under Government proposals. Ownership needs to be settled in the appointment before anything is drawn.
Part of: AI in Landscape architects
In short
The LI Code (R4g(c)) requires written agreements covering intellectual property before work starts. Copyright in AI outputs is shifting: the Government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (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. Getty v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) found the model was not an infringing copy. For landscape practices, the issues are who owns AI-assisted designs, whether clients may reuse them, and whether PI covers infringement claims.
Under UK copyright law, landscape drawings, plans and design images are usually protected as artistic works where a human author made the creative choices. Where a designer uses AI as a tool, selecting, directing and editing the output, protection usually follows the human contribution. The harder case is output with no human author, which the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.9(3), currently protects as a computer-generated work.
The Government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (18 March 2026) proposes removing that protection for computer-generated works with no human author, while AI-assisted works keep protection. If enacted, an image or layout produced by a prompt with little human input may have no copyright at all, which affects both the practice's ability to stop copying and what it can license to a client.
R4g(c) of the LI Code of Practice prohibits professional work without a written agreement covering scope, responsibilities, limitations, intellectual property, fees, termination and disputes. For AI-assisted work, the IP clause should deal with points that older templates may not:
R11g(a) on transparency supports telling clients where AI contributed materially to a design.
In Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (first instance, November 2025), Getty's secondary copyright claims failed because the court held the trained model was not an "infringing copy"; there were limited trade mark findings. The case concerned the developer of the model, not a user. A practice whose AI output closely reproduces a protected garden design, photograph or another practice's drawings could still face an infringement claim on ordinary principles, and imitation of a recognisable style is a reputational risk. See AI images in competitions and marketing.
Illustrative scenario. A practice produces a concept masterplan for a developer using a generative tool with light editing. The appointment says the practice retains copyright and grants a licence for the named site. The developer later reuses the layout on another site without further fees. When the practice objects, the developer argues the layout is computer-generated, has no human author and so no copyright to enforce. Separately, a rival practice alleges that one of the concept images reproduces its published scheme.
The first dispute turns on the human contribution and the contract terms. The second turns on whether a substantial part of a protected work was copied.
Many PI wordings for design professions include cover for claims alleging unintentional infringement of intellectual property in the course of professional services, though limits, sub-limits and exclusions vary, and deliberate copying is not covered. A practice's own wish to enforce its copyright against a client is not a claim against the practice, so PI does not usually fund it. Some policies treat claims about the ownership of design rights differently from infringement claims. See AI IP infringement insurance and does landscape architects' PI cover AI errors?. The architects' angle is in AI generative design and copyright for architects.
Practices can protect their position with a few steps:
Visual evidence issues are covered in AI visualisations and TGN 06/19.
Apex arranges PI for landscape practices and can check whether your wording covers intellectual property claims arising from AI-assisted design. See the AI in landscape architecture overview.
Usually, if you made the creative choices and used AI as a tool. The Government's March 2026 report proposes removing protection only for computer-generated works with no human author under CDPA s.9(3). Keeping records of human design decisions helps show authorship.
R4g(c) requires a written agreement covering intellectual property, along with scope, responsibilities, limitations, fees, termination and disputes, before professional work starts. For AI-assisted work, the clause should address ownership, reuse and the use of client material in AI tools.
No. The High Court found in November 2025 that the trained model was not an infringing copy, so Getty's secondary copyright claims failed. A user whose output reproduces a substantial part of a specific protected work could still face an infringement claim.
Many design PI wordings include some cover for unintentional infringement of intellectual property, subject to limits and exclusions. Deliberate copying is not covered, and enforcing your own copyright is not usually funded by PI. A broker can check your wording.
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.
