Who Insures An AI-Assisted Campaign
Every agency contract contains a clause in which the agency warrants that the work is original and infringes nobody's rights. Whoever insures that promise was assuming a world in which a person made each element and could be asked where it came from. That assumption is now doing a great deal of unexamined work, and almost nobody has reopened the paperwork to look at it.
That assumption is now doing a great deal of unexamined work.
What the clause that insures a campaign assumes
That provenance is knowable. An illustrator can say what they drew, a photographer can produce a release, a composer can point at a session. The warranty is credible because the chain is traceable.
A generated asset has a different shape. The agency can describe how it was produced and cannot fully account for what the model learned, which is not the same thing as a chain of title.
A warranty is a promise about where something came from. Generation makes that promise harder to keep and easier to give.
Where the risk is landing
Mostly still on the agency, because the contracts have not changed as fast as the workflows. Agencies are signing the same warranty for work whose provenance they can describe but not guarantee.
Insurers are the ones moving first, since professional indemnity policies are where this gets priced, and a policy written before generated assets were routine may not contemplate them at all.
What to actually check
Three things: whether the indemnity distinguishes generated material, whether the client has approved the use of the tools in writing, and whether the policy behind the warranty covers the exposure the warranty creates.
Most agencies have not checked the third, which is the one that decides what happens if any of this is ever tested.
More from The AI Shift.