Skip to content
INSIGHTS

INSIGHTS

Analysis, white papers, and case studies on creative IP in the age of AI. From the people building the standard.

White Paper

The legal status of TDM opt-outs in machine-readable form

CIP's position on whether machine-readable TDM opt-outs declared in cip.md meet UK and EU statutory requirements — and the operational implications for rights holders and AI operators.

Read →
White Paper

The status of AI-generated works under UK CDPA s.9(3)

Three competing applications of section 9(3) and CIP's reasoning for the most coherent interpretation — the human-contribution test.

Read →
article20 April 2026

Subsisting rights and registered rights — understanding the difference

One of the most common sources of confusion in AI and intellectual property discussions is the difference between rights that subsist automatically and rights that require registration.

Read →
article19 April 2026

Rights subsistence: what AI companies need to know

Rights subsistence is one of the most important and least understood concepts in the AI-and-IP debate. Understanding it is not optional for AI companies.

Read →
article18 April 2026

Provenance in the AI pipeline

Provenance is the documented history of a creative work. In the age of AI, it has become an operational necessity — a live, machine-readable signal that travels with content through every stage of the pipeline.

Read →
article17 April 2026

Understanding the Core Data Record

The Core Data Record — or CDR — is the provenance infrastructure at the heart of the CIP framework. The structured record that captures what a creative work is, who created it, and on what terms it may be used.

Read →
article16 April 2026

How NILP rights work in the age of AI

Name, Image, Likeness, and Publicity rights — collectively known as NILP — are the rights that protect a person’s ability to control the commercial use of their identity in the age of AI.

Read →
article15 April 2026

What is TDM opt-out and why does it matter?

Text and data mining opt-out is one of the primary legal mechanisms through which rights holders can assert that their content may not be used for AI training without permission.

Read →
White Paper15 April 2026

How AI training data creates hidden copyright liability

Why ingesting copyrighted content into a training corpus does not extinguish the rights subsisting in it; how UK DUA Act 2025, EU AI Act Article 53 and US fair use jurisprudence interact; and what AI companies actually face when content carrying TDM opt-outs enters their pipelines without consent.

Read →
White Paper10 April 2026

How to audit your AI outputs for IP risk — a step-by-step framework

The CIP audit methodology applied to a working AI content pipeline: inventory of ingested content, CDR coverage assessment, output sampling for derivative-rights exposure, NILP screening, and the documentation required to meet Platform Certification audit standards.

Read →
Briefing1 April 2026

The TDM opt-out — what every operator must do now

UK DUA Act 2025, EU AI Act Article 53, four-field minimum declaration, legal weight of machine-readable signals. A three-page briefing for senior decision-makers.

Read →
Briefing28 March 2026

Voice cloning and the NILP Downstream Obligation

Why a brand using AI-generated voice in advertising owes liability to the named voice actor regardless of intermediaries. A two-page briefing.

Read →
White Paper25 March 2026

Generative IP Liability — building an underwriting model for AI content risk

The CARI risk scoring framework, GIPL policy architecture, and the actuarial considerations specific to AI content pipelines — including Training Data Dividend exposure, NILP Downstream Obligation tail risk, and platform compliance correlation.

Read →
Briefing22 March 2026

What "rights-aware ingestion" actually means

The six audit areas, the 95% Rights Payload threshold, and the platform engineering changes required to meet certification. A three-page briefing.

Read →
White Paper20 March 2026

What happens legally when AI transforms copyrighted works?

Derivative rights, moral rights of integrity, and the NILP Downstream Obligation as the three independent legal exposures created when an AI system generates output recognisably derived from a specific creator's work, voice, or likeness.

Read →
Briefing18 March 2026

The Training Data Dividend — paying creators in the AI era

The pay-per-contribution-path model, revenue waterfall through the Rights Registry, collecting society interaction. A three-page briefing.

Read →
Briefing15 March 2026

Subsisting vs registered rights — why this distinction matters in AI

The conceptual foundation of the CIP framework: rights that subsist from the moment of creation versus rights that require formal registration. A two-page briefing.

Read →