AI-Generated Product Images on Amazon: Copyright, Right of Publicity, and Brand Registry Risk in 2026
By AMZ Sellers Attorney® | Published May 22, 2026
The image looks perfect. Studio lighting. A model holding the product at the ideal angle. A background that matches the brand aesthetic exactly. The seller generated it in Midjourney for the cost of a monthly subscription, uploaded it to the listing, and watched conversion rates climb.
What the seller did not do was think about who owns the image, who appears in it, and what kind of complaint a competitor can file with Amazon to take the listing down. In 2026, that omission is starting to cost real money.
This article walks through the three legal risks Amazon and other marketplace sellers face when using AI-generated product imagery: copyright exposure from training data, right of publicity exposure when faces appear, and Brand Registry exposure when complaints land.
Risk One: Copyright and the Training Data Problem
The copyright status of AI-generated images is unsettled in three different directions, and each of them creates exposure.
The first issue is authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office has held, in a series of decisions beginning with the Zarya of the Dawn matter and continuing through subsequent guidance, that purely AI-generated images are not copyrightable because they lack human authorship. That means the seller who generates a product image in Midjourney does not own a copyright in that image. The image is, at best, public domain as to the AI-generated elements.
The practical consequence: a competitor can copy the AI-generated image directly. The seller has no copyright to enforce. Brand Registry complaints alleging copyright infringement of the image will fail. The image cannot be the basis for a DMCA takedown against an infringer.
The second issue is training data. The major AI image generators were trained on massive corpora of images scraped from the internet. Many of those images are themselves copyrighted. The Getty Images v. Stability AI litigation, Andersen v. Stability AI, and related cases are testing whether the training itself was infringing and whether outputs that reproduce identifiable elements of training images create derivative-work liability for the user. The legal landscape is still developing, but a seller who uses an AI image that visibly reproduces a copyrighted source — a recognizable photograph, a distinctive illustration style, a copyrighted character — can face direct copyright claims from the original rightsholder.
The third issue is contract. The terms of service for major AI image generators vary significantly. Some grant commercial use rights; some restrict commercial use to paid tiers; some carve out specific categories. The seller who uses AI imagery without reading the terms of service may be in breach of the platform's commercial use restrictions — a problem that becomes acute if the AI platform itself has to take a position in litigation.
Risk Two: Right of Publicity When Faces Appear
The second risk is human likeness. AI image generators routinely produce images of people who look real — sometimes because the model is generating composites, sometimes because the model has reproduced a specific person from its training data closely enough to be recognizable.
State right of publicity laws — which vary significantly — protect individuals against the unauthorized commercial use of their name, image, likeness, voice, and in some states, distinctive characteristics. California, New York, Tennessee, Indiana, and a growing number of other states have robust statutes. Tennessee's ELVIS Act, enacted in 2024, explicitly includes voice as a protected property right. Arkansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Utah adopted variations in 2025. The federal NO FAKES Act remains pending.
An Amazon seller who uses an AI-generated image that resembles an identifiable real person — whether by accident or because the model trained on that person's images — can face a right of publicity claim. The claim does not require the seller to have intended to use that person's likeness. If the person is identifiable and the use is commercial, the elements are typically met.
The risk is amplified for celebrity likenesses. Matthew McConaughey's December 2025 registration of a sound mark for "alright, alright, alright" and Taylor Swift's April 2026 trademark filings covering her voice and likeness are explicitly designed to create federal trademark claims against AI-generated impersonations. A seller who uses an AI voice that sounds like McConaughey, or an AI image that resembles Swift's stage persona, now faces not only state right of publicity claims but federal Lanham Act claims as well.
Risk Three: Brand Registry and Marketplace Enforcement
The third risk is the one that hits fastest. A competitor who notices an AI-generated image on a listing has several Amazon enforcement tools available.
A Brand Registry complaint alleging copyright infringement can result in a listing takedown within hours. The seller may eventually win the dispute on the underlying merits — particularly if the AI-generated image is not actually copying anything protectable — but the listing is down during the dispute. Lost sales, lost rank, and lost Buy Box position do not come back when the listing is reinstated.
A complaint alleging that the image misrepresents the product can trigger an Amazon investigation under the Listing Accuracy or Product Authenticity policies. AI-generated product images that show features the actual product does not have, or that show the product in misleading contexts, expose the listing to suppression.
A complaint alleging false endorsement — that an AI-generated image of a person suggests an endorsement that does not exist — can be escalated as a Lanham Act false designation of origin claim, with the same Brand Registry mechanics plus potential litigation exposure.
And the Brand Registry program itself has begun to scrutinize AI-generated imagery more aggressively. Listings flagged for AI-generated content that does not match the actual product can be removed under Amazon's content authenticity policies. Sellers whose accounts repeatedly use AI-generated imagery without proper rights documentation can face Section 3 deactivation.
What Sellers Should Actually Do
The legal exposure does not mean AI imagery is unusable. It means AI imagery has to be used with the same legal hygiene that applies to any other content.
First, document the rights. The AI platform's terms of service should grant commercial use rights for the specific tier the seller is using. Keep records of the prompts, the generation date, the platform tier, and the license terms in effect at the time of generation.
Second, avoid identifiable people. AI-generated images that include human faces, voices, or distinctive likenesses should be reviewed for resemblance to real people. If a generated face looks like anyone the seller can identify, the image should not be used commercially.
Third, layer in human authorship. The Copyright Office has indicated that AI-generated images with substantial human creative input — meaningful editing, compositing, original artistic elements added by a human — may be partially protectable. Pure prompt-to-image with no further human work is not. Sellers who want enforceable copyrights in their product imagery should treat AI as a starting point, not the final output.
Fourth, prepare for complaints. The first competitor complaint against an AI-generated image will arrive without warning. Sellers should have documentation ready: rights confirmation from the AI platform, generation records, and evidence that the image does not reproduce any third-party protected work.
Fifth, watch the legislation. The NO FAKES Act, state right of publicity expansions, FTC guidance on AI-generated marketing content, and Copyright Office regulations are all in motion. The legal landscape for AI imagery in 2027 will not be the legal landscape for AI imagery in 2026.
AMZ Sellers Attorney® handles AI-generated content disputes, DMCA matters, Brand Registry defense, and right of publicity issues for marketplace sellers.
Schedule a free consultation →
Learn more about copyright defense for Amazon sellers →
This article is general information, not legal advice. AI-generated content law is rapidly evolving and outcomes depend on facts, jurisdiction, and platform policies in effect at the time of use.
RSS Feed
