Using Midjourney images commercially - what are the actual rights?

I've been creating product mockups and marketing materials using Midjourney. A client wants to buy some of these designs for their actual product packaging.

Do I actually own the copyright to images I generate in Midjourney? Can I sell them commercially? What if someone else used the same prompt and got a similar image?

The TOS is confusing and I don't want to get sued or have my client get sued later.

This is a complex area but I'll break it down based on current law and Midjourney's TOS as of June 2025:

Midjourney's Commercial Rights (paid subscribers):

• If you have a paid subscription, Midjourney grants you commercial usage rights
• You own the assets you create (per their TOS Section 4)
• Free trial users do NOT get commercial rights - only paid members
• Corporate subscribers ($600/year) get broader usage rights for employee-created works

The copyright problem:

Here's where it gets tricky. Under current U.S. copyright law, AI-generated images may NOT be copyrightable because they lack "human authorship." The Copyright Office has been clear that copyright requires human creative input.

This means: You can USE the images commercially (per Midjourney TOS), but you can't necessarily COPYRIGHT them.

Wait so I can sell them but can't copyright them? What does that even mean practically? Can someone else just copy my Midjourney image and use it?

Let me clarify the practical implications:

What you CAN do (as a paid subscriber):

• Use images in commercial projects
• Sell products featuring the images
• Use in client work and charge for your services
• Print on merchandise, use in advertising, etc.

What you CANNOT do:

• Sue someone for copyright infringement if they copy your AI image
• Register the pure AI output with the Copyright Office
• Prevent Midjourney from using your prompts/outputs to train their AI

The workaround: If you make substantial human modifications to the AI output (using Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.), THOSE modifications can be copyrighted. The more human creativity you add, the stronger your copyright claim.

I run a design agency and we use Midjourney all the time. Here's our workflow to protect clients:

1. Generate base images in Midjourney (paid account obviously)
2. Bring into Photoshop/Illustrator and make substantial modifications
3. Add text, adjust colors, combine with other elements
4. The FINAL work is copyrightable as a derivative work

We're transparent with clients that we use AI in our workflow, but the final deliverable has significant human creative input. This gives them enforceable IP rights.

Question: what about the training data issue? I've heard Midjourney trained on copyrighted artwork without permission. If I sell a Midjourney image that's "in the style of" a famous artist, can that artist sue me?

@ZackArt - this is actively being litigated. Several class action lawsuits against AI companies are working through courts right now.

Current state of the law:

• Training on copyrighted works: AI companies claim "fair use" - courts haven't definitively ruled yet
• "In the style of" prompts: Style generally isn't copyrightable, but copying distinctive elements could be infringement
• Your liability: Midjourney's TOS includes indemnification - they claim they'll defend you against IP claims, but read the fine print on limitations

Safest practice: avoid prompts that explicitly reference living artists or distinctive copyrighted characters. "Fantasy landscape" is fine. "Dragon in the style of Greg Rutkowski" is riskier. "Mickey Mouse riding a dragon" is asking for trouble.

This is super helpful. So for my client project, safest approach is:

• Generate images with my paid Midjourney account
• Modify significantly in Photoshop (color correction, compositing, adding text/elements)
• Avoid using specific artist names in prompts
• Deliver the final modified work to client

Does the client need to know I used Midjourney? What about disclosure?

Disclosure is becoming a best practice, and some jurisdictions are starting to require it:

Legal requirements:

• No federal requirement to disclose AI use currently
• California AB 2013 (effective Jan 2025) requires disclosure of AI-generated content in certain commercial contexts
• EU AI Act has transparency requirements

Contractual requirements:

• Check your client contract - does it specify "original work" or prohibit AI tools?
• Some stock photo sites (Getty, Shutterstock) ban AI-generated content entirely
• Ad agencies increasingly want to know about AI use for brand safety

My advice: disclose it. Say "this concept was developed using AI-assisted design tools and refined through professional editing." Most clients don't care as long as the end result is good and legally defensible.

I sell print-on-demand merch using Midjourney designs. Revenue is around $8k/month. Never had a legal issue.

Things I've learned:

• Redbubble and Society6 allow AI art but require you to confirm you have commercial rights
• Amazon Merch cracked down - they reject obvious unmodified AI images now
• Etsy doesn't ban AI but buyers are savvy and call it out in reviews

The market is saturated with AI art now. You need to modify/refine to stand out anyway, which solves the copyright problem naturally.

One more critical point about Midjourney's Terms of Service Section 5 - the exception for company revenues over $1M/year:

If your company made more than $1,000,000 in gross revenue last year, you MUST purchase a Corporate plan ($600/year minimum) to use images commercially. The standard paid plans don't grant commercial rights above this threshold.

Also, Midjourney retains rights to use all your generations for their marketing and to improve their AI. Your prompts and outputs are generally visible to other users unless you pay for "Stealth Mode" (available on Pro plan and higher).

For client work with NDAs or confidential projects, you may need Stealth Mode to avoid exposing concepts publicly.

Extremely helpful thread. Final summary for my situation:

• I have paid Midjourney Pro account - commercial rights OK
• Will substantially modify outputs in Photoshop to add copyrightability
• Disclosing AI use to client upfront
• Avoiding named artist styles in prompts
• Revenue under $1M so no corporate plan needed

Feel much more confident moving forward. Thanks everyone, especially @Amanda_IPLaw and @TechPolicy_Brian for the detailed legal breakdown.

jumping in late here but wanted to share my experience selling prints specifically since that seems to be a common use case

ive been selling fine art prints on my own website + local art fairs for about 8 months now. all midjourney v6 generations, some with light photoshop touchups. revenue is ~$2-3k/month which is nice side income.

What's actually worked for me:

• Upscaling to 300dpi using Topaz Gigapixel before printing (MJ native res isnt great for large prints)
• Printing on quality paper stock - people can tell the difference
• Being upfront that its AI art - surprisingly most buyers dont care, some think its cool
• Keeping detailed records of my prompts and generation dates just in case

One thing I'd add to the copyright discussion - I had another artist on etsy basically copy one of my exact designs. Couldn't do anything about it legally since theres no copyright protection. Pretty frustrating but thats the trade off I guess.

@EthanBrand curious what POD platforms youve had best luck with? thinking of expanding beyond my own site

Ok so I do a LOT of client work with AI tools and wanted to chime in on the comparison angle since I've used pretty much all of them at this point.

How Midjourney stacks up vs other AI tools commercially:

DALL-E 3 (via ChatGPT Plus): OpenAI gives you full commercial rights too, similar to MJ. The quality is more "stock photo" looking imo but better for realistic stuff. Their content policy is stricter tho - way more prompts get blocked.

Stable Diffusion: This is where it gets interesting. If you run it locally or use the open source version, theres no TOS at all - you have maximum freedom. But also no one to indemnify you if something goes wrong. I use this for more experimental client work where MJ would reject the prompt.

Adobe Firefly: Full commercial rights AND trained only on licensed/public domain images, so theoretically the "safest" from a liability standpoint. Quality still lags behind MJ tho especially for artistic styles.

Leonardo AI: Commercial rights on paid plans similar to MJ. Good for game assets specifically.

For client work I usually use MJ for initial concepts, then firefly for anything that needs to go thru legal review at big companies. Some enterprise clients specifically require Firefly now becuase of the training data transparency.

Great thread. Want to add some important updates on recent policy changes since things move fast in this space:

2025-2026 Legal Developments:

• Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023, upheld on appeal 2024): Confirmed AI-only works can't receive copyright. This is still controlling law.
• Copyright Office Guidance (March 2025): New guidance clarifies that works with "sufficient human authorship" in selection, arrangement, or modification CAN be registered. The AI parts just won't be protected.
• Getty v. Stability AI: Still pending but preliminary rulings suggest training on copyrighted images might not be fair use. Could affect all AI image generators eventually.
• EU AI Act (took effect Aug 2025): Requires disclosure of AI-generated content in commercial contexts. If you sell to EU customers, this matters.

Practical compliance tips for 2026:

1. Document your creative process - save prompts, iterations, edits. This helps prove human involvement if challenged.
2. For high-value commercial work, always add substantial human modifications
3. Include AI disclosure in your contracts and client deliverables
4. Consider professional liability insurance that covers AI-assisted work (some policies exclude it now)
5. Stay away from prompts referencing living artists, celebrities, or trademarked characters - this is where most legal trouble starts

The law is still catching up to the technology. Being proactive about documentation and disclosure protects you while things settle.

@DesignPro_Sarah regarding POD platforms - heres my breakdown after 2 years selling AI-generated merch:

Best platforms for AI art in 2026:

• Printful + own Shopify store: Best margins, full control, they dont care if its AI. This is my main revenue stream.
• Redbubble: Still allows AI but requires disclosure now. Lower margins but good for passive income and discoverability.
• Society6: Similar to RB, good for art prints specifically
• Teepublic: Works fine, no issues with AI content

Platforms to avoid or be careful with:

• Amazon Merch: They've been rejecting AI art aggressively. Not worth the hassle anymore imo
• Etsy: Technically allowed but you WILL get called out in reviews. The handmade crowd is hostile to AI. I closed my etsy shop.
• Zazzle: Very strict content review, lots of rejections

Pro tip: whatever platform you use, always modify your MJ outputs before uploading. Add text overlays, adjust colors, combine multiple generations. Makes the designs more unique AND solves the copyright issue AND gets past automated AI detection.

been doing $10-15k/month with this approach. it works.

SUCCESS STORY: Finally got my $4,200 back after Redbubble suspended my account for "IP violations"

They claimed my fantasy castle designs were too similar to a Disney property (they weren't - just generic fairy tale castles). I submitted proof of my Midjourney generations with timestamps and prompts showing no Disney references.

After 6 weeks of back and forth and threatening small claims court, they reinstated everything. Document EVERYTHING people. Keep your prompt logs, save your generation history, screenshot the dates.

Also for anyone worried about this - I now add "original design, not based on any existing IP" to all my product descriptions. Not sure if it legally helps but it's set expectations.

Quick question - does this apply if I'm using Midjourney images for my YouTube thumbnails? I'm a gaming channel with about 50k subs and starting to get some sponsorship offers. Do I need the corporate plan?

My annual revenue is nowhere near $1M but the sponsorships are technically commercial use right?

@LurkerKevin - The $1M threshold refers to your company's total gross revenue, not just revenue from AI-generated content. If you're under $1M total annual revenue as a creator, the standard paid plan covers commercial use including thumbnails for monetized videos.

Sponsorships are commercial use, yes, but you're fine with a regular paid subscription as long as your total revenue is under the threshold. Once you hit $1M/year across all income streams, upgrade to Corporate.

For more details on commercial use rules across different AI tools, check out our AI Commercial Use FAQ.

Actually I disagree with a lot of the advice here about "just modifying images to get copyright protection"

The Copyright Office guidance is clear that modifications need to be SUBSTANTIAL to qualify for protection. Color correction and adding text overlays probably isn't enough. You'd need to fundamentally transform the work.

And let's be honest - if your "human creative input" is just running the image through some Photoshop filters and slapping a quote on it, a court would probably see right through that. The whole point is human CREATIVE expression, not human button-clicking.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade but I think people are being overly optimistic about how much protection light edits actually provide.

@ContrarianJim raises a fair point. Let me clarify the legal standard here:

Under 17 U.S.C. Section 103, a derivative work only gets copyright protection for the "material contributed by the author" - meaning only your original additions are protected, not the underlying AI-generated material.

The bar for "sufficient human authorship" hasn't been clearly defined by courts yet for AI-assisted works. The Copyright Office has indicated that:

• Selection and arrangement CAN be copyrightable (choosing which outputs to use, how to combine them)
• Mechanical changes (filters, basic color adjustment) likely aren't enough
• Creative modifications (painting over portions, adding original elements, significant compositing) have a stronger claim

The honest answer is: we won't know exactly where the line is until we get more court decisions. Being conservative is wise.

In the EU it's different because of the AI Act requirements. Since August 2025 we have mandatory disclosure rules for AI-generated content in commercial use.

If you're selling to EU customers from anywhere in the world, you technically need to comply. The requirements include:

• Clear labeling that content is AI-generated
• Maintaining records of AI system used
• Penalties up to 35M EUR or 7% of global turnover for violations

In practice, enforcement is still ramping up, but big platforms like Etsy and Amazon are implementing disclosure requirements for EU sellers. If you sell internationally, factor this into your process.

German here btw - copyright law here requires even MORE human input than US law for protection. The "kleine Munze" doctrine traditionally protected even minor creative works but courts have been stricter with AI output.

UPDATE: 6 weeks later and I wanted to share how it went!

Client loved the final designs. We used 5 Midjourney-generated base images, all heavily modified in Photoshop (compositing, custom color grading, added original illustrations on top). Product launched last week.

Things I learned from this project:

• Disclosed AI use upfront in the contract - client was fine with it
• Saved all prompts and generation history in a project folder
• The heavy modifications actually improved the designs anyway - raw MJ outputs rarely work as-is for professional packaging

Revenue from this project: $3,800. No legal issues. Client already asking about phase 2. Thanks again to everyone in this thread!

What about NFTs? I know the market crashed but some platforms are still active. Can I mint Midjourney art as NFTs and sell them?

The ToS doesn't specifically mention NFTs/blockchain and Im confused about whether selling an NFT counts as selling the "image" or selling "ownership rights" to the image.

@NFTQuestions_Maya - NFTs are a gray area. Here's the breakdown:

What an NFT actually is: You're selling a token that points to the image, not the image itself or any IP rights. Buyers get a collectible, not copyright ownership.

Midjourney's position: Their ToS allows commercial use of images you generate. Minting an NFT is arguably commercial use. However, the underlying IP issues remain - if the base image isn't copyrightable, the NFT buyer isn't getting any enforceable IP rights either.

Platform rules matter:

• OpenSea: Allows AI art, requires you to tag it
• Foundation: Stricter curation, some AI art rejected
• Most platforms have anti-plagiarism policies that apply to AI art copying others' styles

Practically speaking: Yes, you can mint MJ art as NFTs. Just be transparent that it's AI-generated and don't imply the buyer is getting copyright ownership. The bigger risk is market reputation - AI art NFTs are heavily devalued in most communities right now.

Wanted to share my 18-month journey selling MJ art for anyone considering this as a business:

Month 1-3 (Feb-Apr 2024): Started experimenting with MJ v5. Uploaded to Redbubble and Etsy. Made about $200 total.

Month 4-6 (May-Jul 2024): Found my niche (vintage travel posters reimagined). Started getting traction. $800/month average.

Month 7-9 (Aug-Oct 2024): Got hit with first copyright claim on Etsy (completely bogus - contested and won). Switched to Shopify + Printful. Revenue: $2,500/month.

Month 10-12 (Nov 2024-Jan 2025): Holiday season boom. Made $8k in December alone. Started taking custom orders.

Month 13-18 (Feb-Jul 2025): Consistent $4-6k/month. Now doing 50% custom client work, 50% POD. Total revenue to date: ~$52k.

Key lessons:

• Finding a specific niche is everything
• Custom orders have way better margins than POD
• Document everything from day 1
• Dont fight the disclosure trend - embrace it

HORROR STORY (that eventually got resolved):

I was selling greeting cards with MJ art through my Etsy shop. Got a cease & desist letter from a company claiming my "mystical forest" design infringed on their children's book illustrations.

Hired a lawyer ($1,200 consultation) who confirmed the designs weren't actually similar enough to constitute infringement - they were just trying to scare small sellers. Sent back a firm response with our analysis.

They backed off completely. Never heard from them again.

What I learned:

• Keep ALL your generation records - timestamps, prompts, iterations
• Some companies send baseless C&Ds hoping you'll just comply
• A lawyer consultation is worth it for peace of mind
• I now have general liability insurance that covers IP claims ($500/year)

Scary experience but it worked out. Don't let fear stop you from creating.

5 years in commercial illustration, 2 years using AI tools. Here are my pro tips for protecting yourself:

1. Layer your creations: Never use raw MJ output. Layer multiple generations, add hand-drawn elements, composite thoughtfully. This isn't just for copyright - it produces better work.

2. Use describe-then-generate: Upload your own sketches/photos to MJ as references. The output is more defensibly "yours" because it's derived from your original creative work.

3. Version control everything: I use a simple folder structure: /prompts, /raw_generations, /wip, /final. Keep it for at least 3 years.

4. Contract language: My client contracts now include: "Design process may utilize AI-assisted tools. All deliverables include substantial human creative input and modification."

5. Get insurance: Professional liability insurance. Mine is through Hiscox, about $600/year. Covers IP claims. Worth every penny for peace of mind.

The game isn't about avoiding AI - it's about using it professionally.

Platform-specific experience here: I tried to sell AI art on stock sites. Results:

Shutterstock: Flat out bans AI-generated content. My account got flagged and 200+ images were removed. They use detection tools now. Don't even try.

Adobe Stock: Only accepts Firefly-generated images through their integrated workflow. No Midjourney or other tools. Makes sense since they control the whole pipeline.

iStock/Getty: Complete ban on AI-generated content. They're actively suing Stability AI so obviously not friendly to AI art.

Pond5: Was allowing AI art for a while, then reversed course in early 2025. My AI content got grandfathered but new uploads rejected.

Freepik: Has a separate AI art section. Lower payouts but at least they're honest about what it is.

Bottom line: Traditional stock photography sites are not the play for AI art. Focus on POD, direct sales, or client work instead.

Question about client work specifically: I'm a marketing consultant and want to use MJ for creating social media graphics for clients. What should be in my contracts?

Current clients are mostly small businesses. Budgets are $500-2000/month for content creation. They expect to own what I create but with the copyright issues discussed here, what am I actually transferring to them?

@ClientWork_Rachel - Great question. Here's contract language I recommend for AI-assisted creative work:

Disclosure clause:
"Provider may utilize AI-assisted design tools in the creative process. All deliverables include substantial human creative input, curation, and modification."

License grant (instead of assignment):
"Provider grants Client an exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to use the Deliverables for any commercial purpose. Provider warrants that Client's use will not infringe any third-party rights."

Why license instead of assignment? You can't assign copyright in something that may not be copyrightable. A license grant sidesteps this issue - you're granting permission to use, not transferring ownership of something you may not fully own.

Indemnification:
Include mutual indemnification. You indemnify them against IP claims related to your work; they indemnify you if they modify it in ways that create infringement.

For more contract templates and guidance, see our AI Commercial Use FAQ which has sample language.

Been lurking this thread for months. finally have somethign to contribute

I do book cover design. Started incorporating MJ into my workflow about 8 months ago. Heres how it works for publishing specifically:

Self-published authors (Amazon KDP etc): They usually don't care if you use AI. Budget conscious, just want something that looks good. I disclose it, they're fine with it. 90% of my business.

Small/indie publishers: Mixed bag. Some are cool with it, some have policies against AI art. Always ask first. Lost one client who found out I'd used MJ and hadn't disclosed - my fault for not being upfront.

Traditional "Big 5" publishers: Hard no. They have strict contracts requiring original artwork and are terrified of copyright issues. Don't even try.

My process: MJ for initial concepts and background elements, then I paint over the main figures/characters traditionally in Procreate. Publishers are happy because the final work has significant hand-painted elements.

Avg book cover price: $400-800 for indie authors. Do about 6-8 per month. Good side income!

Wanted to share some resources/tools I've found helpful for anyone doing this commercially:

For upscaling (essential for print):

• Topaz Gigapixel AI - best quality, $99 one-time
• Magnific.ai - amazing for adding detail, subscription based
• MJ's built-in upscaler has improved a lot in v6 but still not print-ready for large formats

For record keeping:

• Notion template for tracking prompts/generations
• Google Drive with dated folders (free and automatic timestamps)
• Screenshot your MJ generations in Discord - includes timestamps

For contracts:

• Hello Bonsai has good freelance contract templates
• Docracy has free creative services agreements
• The AIGA design contract is solid but needs AI clauses added

For insurance:

• Hiscox - popular for creatives
• Next Insurance - good for small business
• Make sure policy doesn't exclude "AI-generated content" - some do now

Attorney here (IP focus, 12 years practice). Want to add some legal citations for those who want to dig deeper:

Key Cases:

• Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023, affirmed 2024) - AI-only works not copyrightable
• Zarya of the Dawn (Copyright Office 2023) - Partial registration allowed for human-created elements
• Andersen v. Stability AI (N.D. Cal., ongoing) - Key case on training data, will shape future landscape

Copyright Office Guidance:

• March 2023: Initial guidance on AI works
• March 2025: Updated guidance on "sufficient human authorship"
• Registration requires disclosure of AI use since March 2023

Relevant Statutes:

• 17 U.S.C. 102 - Subject matter of copyright (requires "original works of authorship")
• 17 U.S.C. 103 - Compilations and derivative works
• California AB 2013 - State-level AI disclosure requirement

Not legal advice, but: the law is still developing. Document everything, disclose AI use, add human creativity, and consult an attorney for high-stakes projects.

@MerchKing_Tyler asked about Amazon - wanted to give a more detailed breakdown since I've been in the Amazon merch program for 4 years now:

Amazon's AI detection has gotten REALLY good. They're using some combination of:

• Image analysis AI to detect MJ/DALL-E/SD artifacts
• Metadata scanning (some tools leave traces)
• Manual review for flagged accounts

What gets rejected:

• Raw MJ outputs - almost 100% rejection rate now
• Lightly edited AI art (just adding text)
• AI art with telltale signs (the "MJ look")

What still works:

• AI as starting point, then heavily overpainted
• Using AI for background elements only
• Composite works where AI is <50% of the design

Is it worth the hassle? For me, yes - Amazon has the traffic. But I spend 2-3x more time on each design now compared to when I could use raw generations. YMMV.

Chiming in with UK perspective since I see lots of US-focused advice:

UK copyright law is actually a bit MORE friendly to AI creators than US law. Under CDPA 1988 Section 9(3), the "author" of a computer-generated work is "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."

This COULD be interpreted to mean prompt engineers are authors. No definitive court ruling yet but the statutory language is different from the US.

However, we're also subject to EU AI Act requirements for any EU sales, plus UK is developing its own AI regulation framework.

Practical differences:

• No registration system like US Copyright Office - copyright is automatic
• Can't "test" copyrightability through registration
• Enforcement would require litigation to establish rights

For UK creators: keep the same documentation practices, but know that your legal position may actually be slightly stronger than US counterparts. Talk to a UK IP solicitor for serious projects.

UPDATE from my earlier post - 4 months later and things have changed:

Revenue is now ~$12k/month (up from $8k). Here's what changed:

• Closed all marketplace shops (Etsy, Redbubble) and went 100% Shopify + Printful
• Better margins, no platform drama, full control over branding
• Started doing limited edition drops instead of unlimited prints - creates urgency
• Invested in better upscaling tools - Magnific is a game changer

The AI art market is maturing. Standing out requires either incredible prompting skills, heavy post-processing, or strong branding. Ideally all three.

Copyright stuff hasn't been an issue because I'm not trying to sue anyone - I'm just trying to sell. If someone copies my exact design, I'll deal with it through platform takedowns (which don't require copyright registration).

Has anyone used MJ commercially for game development? I'm an indie dev working on a visual novel and considering using AI art for backgrounds.

Specific concerns:

• Steam's policy on AI-generated content?
• If the game becomes successful, could past AI usage become a liability?
• What about using AI art for concept art that I then commission "real" artists to recreate?

Budget is tight (indie life) but I don't want to create future problems.

@GameDev_Carlos - I've worked with a few indie game studios. Here's what I know:

Steam policy: As of late 2025, Steam requires disclosure if your game contains AI-generated content. They haven't banned it but you need to check a box during submission. Some games have gotten review-bombed by anti-AI communities when they didn't disclose.

Future liability: The main risk is if your game becomes successful enough that someone decides to make an example of you. Low-profile indie games probably fine. High-profile success could attract scrutiny. Mitigate by documenting everything and making modifications.

AI for concept art: This is actually the safest use case! The final assets are human-created. The AI is just part of your creative process. No disclosure needed imo since the shipped product doesn't contain AI art.

My recommendation for indie VN: Use MJ for backgrounds (less scrutiny than character art), modify them in Photoshop, disclose on Steam. For characters, either commission artists or use the MJ concepts as references for your own drawings.

really appreciate all the info in this thread. have been reading for hours lol

one thing i dont understand - everyone keeps saying "substantial modifications" but what actually counts?? Like if I:

• Change the colors = substantial?
• Add a text overlay = substantial?
• Crop and resize = substantial?
• Combine 2 MJ images = substantial?
• Paint over parts in photoshop = substantial?

where is the line?? I want to do this right but the legal stuff is confusing

@NewbieLearner_Tom - Fair question. The honest answer is that there's no bright line yet. But here's my framework based on Copyright Office guidance and general copyright principles:

Probably NOT substantial:

• Color adjustment/filters (mechanical, no creativity)
• Cropping/resizing (no new creative elements)
• Simple text overlays (minimal creativity)

Getting warmer:

• Combining multiple AI images thoughtfully (selection/arrangement)
• Adding original graphic elements you created
• Significant compositing with stock/original photos

Likely substantial:

• Painting over significant portions (adding human artistic expression)
• Using AI as rough base, then essentially re-creating in your style
• Complex compositions where AI is one element among many original elements

The question to ask yourself: "Could a reasonable person look at this and recognize significant human creative expression beyond what the AI produced?" If yes, you're probably fine. If it's basically the AI image with minor tweaks, you're in the gray zone.

UPDATE: 5 months since my original post and figured I'd share results

Took @MerchKing_Tyler's advice and switched from Etsy to Printful + Shopify. Best decision ever.

Numbers:

• June-July (Etsy): ~$2.5k/month, constant drama with anti-AI reviews
• Aug-Nov (Shopify): Grew from $3k to $7k/month
• No platform fees eating into margins
• No dealing with marketplace algorithm changes

The trade-off is you have to drive your own traffic, which means learning marketing. I've been doing Pinterest + TikTok content showing my creation process (including the AI parts). Transparency actually builds trust.

Also started offering custom commissions. Client sends reference images, I create MJ variations, modify in Photoshop, deliver. $150-300 per piece. Great money for 2-3 hours of work.

This thread was life-changing for me. Thanks everyone who shared their experiences!

I gotta push back on the optimism here. Everyone's sharing success stories but nobody's talking about the elephant in the room:

The legal landscape could change dramatically.

If the Getty v Stability AI case goes badly for AI companies, there could be retroactive liability. If Congress passes new AI copyright legislation (multiple bills pending), the rules could change overnight.

Building a business on AI art right now is building on sand. You could wake up tomorrow and find out:

• Midjourney has to pay massive damages and raises prices 10x
• New laws require licensing fees for commercial AI art
• Platforms ban AI art entirely to avoid liability

I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying have a backup plan. Diversify your income. Don't put all your eggs in the AI art basket.

The people making $10k/month now might be making $0/month if the legal winds shift. Just something to think about.

@SkepticalMark raises valid concerns. Let me give a balanced legal perspective:

Likely scenarios:

• Increased disclosure requirements (already happening)
• Possible licensing frameworks for training data (wouldn't affect end users much)
• Clearer guidelines on what modifications enable copyright

Unlikely scenarios:

• Retroactive bans on commercial AI art use (ex post facto concerns)
• Complete prohibition on commercial AI art (First Amendment issues)
• Personal liability for end users for training data issues (companies bear this risk)

The Midjourney ToS indemnification clause means THEY bear the liability for training data disputes, not you. That could change if they went bankrupt, but major tech companies don't usually disappear overnight.

Risk mitigation strategies:

1. Diversify across multiple AI tools (Firefly is safest)
2. Add substantial human modifications to everything
3. Keep detailed records
4. Don't build 100% of income on any single platform or tool

Healthy skepticism is good. Paralysis isn't. The law will evolve, and those who document and adapt will be fine.

Quick question - what about using MJ images for website hero images and marketing materials for clients? Slightly different use case than selling the art itself.

I do web design and clients always want custom imagery but don't have budget for photoshoots or custom illustration. AI seems perfect for this but want to make sure I'm covered.

@WebDesigner_Wendy - This is exactly what we do at my agency. It's probably the lowest-risk commercial use case actually.

Why it's relatively safe:

• Marketing materials aren't being "sold" - they're part of a service
• Images are typically used in context (with text, branding, other elements)
• Low incentive for anyone to copy website hero images
• Easy to replace later if needed

What I recommend:

• Disclose to clients that you use AI in your workflow
• Modify images - at minimum composite with their branding elements
• Include clause in your contract about AI-assisted design
• Keep records in case questions come up later

Been doing this for 2 years, dozens of clients, zero issues. It's honestly transformed my business - I can offer custom imagery at a fraction of what photoshoots or stock licenses would cost.

Niche use case: I design fabric patterns for the quilting/sewing community. Started using MJ about a year ago and wanted to share since I haven't seen this discussed.

The workflow:

1. Generate base motifs in MJ (florals, geometrics, etc)
2. Bring into Illustrator and convert to seamless repeat patterns
3. Adjust colors for fabric printing requirements (CMYK, specific Pantones)
4. Upload to Spoonflower or sell to fabric manufacturers

Results:

• Spoonflower: ~$800/month in royalties from ~200 patterns
• Licensed 3 collections to a fabric manufacturer - $5k advances each
• Custom patterns for indie clothing brands - $200-500 each

The key insight: by the time you convert a raster MJ image into a proper vector seamless repeat, you've added substantial human creative work. Color reduction, path editing, tile arrangement - it's a skill.

Nobody in the quilting community has called out my AI use. Disclosure is in my shop FAQ but people care about the final patterns, not how the initial motifs were created.

Enterprise/agency perspective here. Work at a mid-size marketing agency and we've had to develop formal AI usage policies. Sharing in case it helps others:

Our internal policy:

• AI tools allowed for concepting and internal ideation
• Client deliverables must have >50% human-created elements
• All AI use must be disclosed to clients before project kickoff
• No AI for clients in regulated industries (pharma, finance) without explicit approval
• Adobe Firefly preferred for final assets due to training data transparency

Client reactions:

• Most don't care as long as quality is high
• Some love it (faster turnaround, more concepts)
• A few have hard "no AI" policies we have to respect
• Enterprise clients increasingly asking about AI use in RFPs

The industry is normalizing AI use. We're past the "should we use it?" phase and into "how do we use it responsibly?" phase.

G'day from Australia - adding another international perspective since I've seen UK and EU comments.

Australian copyright law (Copyright Act 1968) requires human authorship similar to US law. No specific AI guidance from our Copyright Council yet but the general principle holds - pure AI output unlikely to be protected.

Interestingly, we don't have a registration system at all - copyright is automatic upon creation. So there's no way to "test" whether your AI-assisted work would be protected until you try to enforce it in court.

Practical situation here:

• No specific disclosure requirements (yet)
• Platforms operating in AU follow their global policies
• Consumer law is strong - can't mislead about nature of goods
• Small market so less scrutiny than US/EU

Been selling MJ art prints at local markets for 6 months. Always disclose it's AI-assisted. Most customers think it's interesting. Made about $15k AUD total, no legal issues.

UPDATE from the original poster (new account because I forgot my password lol)

It's been 6+ months since I started this thread and wanted to give a final update:

Total revenue from AI-assisted design work since June 2025: $47,000

Breakdown:

• Original client project (packaging): $3,800
• Follow-up projects from same client: $12,000
• New clients from referrals: $18,200
• POD sales (started in Sept): $8,500
• Custom commissions: $4,500

Zero legal issues. Zero client complaints about AI use. One awkward conversation when a client's legal team asked questions, but @Amanda_IPLaw's advice about contracts and disclosure saved me.

This thread literally changed my career trajectory. I went from worrying about getting sued to building a legitimate business. Thank you to everyone who contributed.

For anyone lurking and scared to start - just do it. Follow the advice here (paid plan, modifications, disclosure, documentation) and you'll be fine.

Lurker here with a specific question. I'm a software developer building an app that lets users create custom phone cases using AI-generated art. Users pick styles, enter prompts, we generate via MJ API, print the case, ship it.

Legal questions:

1. Do I need corporate MJ license even if individual orders are small? (Revenue ~$400k/yr)
2. Who "owns" the generation - me (as API user) or my customer (who provided the prompt)?
3. Should my ToS transfer all rights to the customer or keep them with me?

Building the tech is easy. The legal stuff keeps me up at night.

@LegalQuestions_Dev - These are excellent questions that require a real consultation, but I can give general guidance:

1. Corporate license: At $400k revenue you're under the $1M threshold, BUT you're running a business that commercially uses MJ at scale. I'd argue the spirit of the Corporate plan applies. Contact Midjourney directly - they have enterprise sales for exactly this use case. Don't risk your whole business on a technicality.

2. Ownership: Under MJ's ToS, the account holder (you) gets the rights. Your customer provided input but through YOUR account/API access. Your ToS needs to address this transfer.

3. ToS structure: Typical approach is: You grant customer a license to use their custom design for personal use on the product. You retain underlying rights (what little may exist). This protects you if you need to reproduce/replace their order and limits their ability to commercialize YOUR service's output.

HOWEVER - please consult an actual attorney for your specific situation. Building a business on AI-generated content at scale has real liability exposure. Get proper legal setup before you scale further.

Also recommend checking our AI Commercial Use FAQ for more business-specific guidance.

wierd niche question - can I use MJ for tattoo designs?

I'm a tattoo artist and sometimes clients want something really specific that would take me hours to design from scratch. Been using MJ to generate concepts, then redrawing them by hand for the actual tattoo.

By the time it's on someone's skin it's 100% hand-drawn by me. But the concept came from AI. Am I good?

@TattooArtist_Rex - You're in the clear. Using AI for concepts that you then recreate by hand is the safest possible use case.

Think of it like using Pinterest for inspiration - the final work is yours. The AI is just a more sophisticated mood board.

Key points:

• Your hand-drawn tattoo design IS your original work
• The AI reference isn't being "sold" - it's part of your creative process
• By the time it's on skin, 0% of the actual AI pixels exist

Disclosure to clients is optional but probably good practice. Something like "I use AI tools in my design process to help visualize concepts before hand-drawing the final piece."

Most clients probably won't care. They're paying for your skill with the needle, not your drawing process.

Can't believe this thread is still going 8 months later! Quick 2026 update from me:

Revenue update: Crossed $200k total sales in January. Now at $18-22k/month consistently.

What's changed since July:

• MJ v6.1 is incredible - quality difference means less post-processing needed
• Started offering white-label designs to other POD sellers - $50-100 per design, passive income
• Hired a VA to handle customer service and order management
• Legal setup: Formed LLC, got proper insurance, working with accountant

Advice for 2026:

• The market is MORE saturated but also more legitimate - treat it like a real business
• Specialization wins - pick a niche and own it
• The copyright situation hasn't changed dramatically - stay informed but don't panic
• Disclosure is becoming standard - just bake it into your process

Thanks to everyone who shared knowledge in this thread. This community helped me build a legit business.

Great to see this thread still helping people! Since we're in 2026 now, here's my legal update:

What's settled:

• Pure AI output = no copyright (Thaler still controlling)
• Human modifications can enable partial copyright
• Disclosure requirements are expanding globally
• Midjourney TOS commercial rights still valid for paid users under $1M

What's still pending:

• Getty v. Stability AI - could reshape training data liability
• Several Congressional bills on AI copyright
• State-level regulations continuing to develop

Best practices remain unchanged:

1. Use paid plans for commercial work
2. Add substantial human creativity
3. Document your process
4. Disclose AI use to clients and in ToS
5. Avoid prompts referencing protected IP

The sky hasn't fallen. Responsible AI art commerce is viable and growing. Keep following best practices and you'll be positioned well regardless of how the law evolves.

For comprehensive guidance, our AI Commercial Use FAQ is kept updated with the latest developments.