Image Licensing: UK Law vs EU Law After Brexit

When a UK website displays images, uses third-party photographs or creates visual content for publication, the applicable copyright law is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), not EU copyright law. Since Brexit, UK and EU copyright frameworks have diverged and understanding the differences is relevant both for day-to-day licensing decisions and for responding to copyright infringement claims.

This guide explains the key differences between UK and EU image licensing law, the UK orphan works scheme and the practical steps for UK website operators dealing with copyright claims.

If you're not sure what third-party images or scripts your site is loading, run a free scan. It checks what your pages are actually serving to visitors.

For the EU side of image enforcement, the cost of a typical claim is covered in How much does a copyright claim cost?.

<div className="my-6 overflow-x-auto"> <table className="w-full border-collapse text-sm"> <thead> <tr className="bg-slate-100 text-left"> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Topic</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">UK position (CDPA 1988)</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">EU position (post-DSM 2019)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Primary statute</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (single consolidated act)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Directives implemented in national law (InfoSoc 2001, DSM 2019)</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Term of photo protection</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Life of author + 70 years (CDPA s.12)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Life of author + 70 years (harmonised)</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">News-reporting exception for photos</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2"><strong>Excluded</strong>. Section 30(2) carves photos out.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Available in several Member States subject to conditions.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Text and data mining</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Non-commercial only (CDPA s.29A). Commercial expansion consulted but unenacted as of 2026.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">DSM Art 3 (research) and Art 4 (commercial with opt-out).</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Press publishers' right</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Does not exist.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">DSM Art 15 creates the right.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Platform upload-filter obligation</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Does not apply.</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">DSM Art 17 (best-efforts licensing and prevention).</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Orphan works route</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">UK IPO licensing scheme (CDPA ss.116A-116D).</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">EU Orphan Works Directive 2012/28/EU (separate, EU-only).</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div>

The CDPA 1988 foundation

UK copyright law is grounded in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Unlike EU copyright law, which is built on a series of Directives that member states implement into national law, the CDPA is a single consolidated statute. It was in force before EU harmonisation began in earnest in the 1990s and has been amended incrementally, including to implement EU Directives before Brexit.

After Brexit, the UK retained EU-derived copyright law as it stood at the exit date. The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (implementing the 2001 InfoSoc Directive), the Database Regulations 1997 (implementing the 1996 Database Directive) and related instruments remain part of UK law. What the UK did not retain are EU Directives enacted after exit, most notably the Digital Single Market Directive (Directive 2019/790).

For images, the foundation is copyright protection. Under CDPA section 1(1)(a), photographs are artistic works and are protected by copyright as soon as they are created. No registration is required. The default term of protection is the life of the author plus 70 years for artistic works (section 12 CDPA). For computer-generated images with no human author, the term is 50 years from the year of creation (section 12(7)).

Key UK exceptions for images

The CDPA contains a series of exceptions to copyright infringement, called permitted acts. Several are relevant to image use on websites.

<div className="my-6 overflow-x-auto"> <table className="w-full border-collapse text-sm"> <thead> <tr className="bg-slate-100 text-left"> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">CDPA section</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Exception</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">Covers photos?</th> <th className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">When it actually applies on a website</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">s.29</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Research and private study</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Yes (non-commercial)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Academic and private use. Not commercial publication.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">s.29A</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Text and data mining</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Yes (non-commercial)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Computational research with lawful access. Not commercial AI training.</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">s.30(1)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Fair dealing for criticism and review</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Yes</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Reviewing the image itself or another work. Source must be acknowledged.</td> </tr> <tr className="bg-slate-50"> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">s.30(2)</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Fair dealing for reporting current events</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2"><strong>No</strong>, photographs excluded</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Cannot use a stock photo to illustrate a news story under this section.</td> </tr> <tr> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2 font-semibold">s.31</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Incidental inclusion</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">Yes</td> <td className="border border-slate-300 px-3 py-2">A poster visible in a street photo is incidental. A deliberately featured product is not.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div>

Fair dealing for criticism and review (section 30(1) CDPA): using a copyright image for the purpose of criticising or reviewing that work or another work does not infringe copyright, provided the use is fair and the source is acknowledged and the work has been made available to the public. "Fair dealing" is a qualitative assessment. The use must be genuinely for the permitted purpose and the quantity used must be no more than necessary.

One important point that catches people out: section 30(2) explicitly excludes photographs from the fair dealing exception for reporting current events. The statute applies that news-reporting exception to works "other than a photograph". You cannot rely on section 30(2) to use a photograph to illustrate a news story, even if the story is genuinely newsworthy. Criticism and review (section 30(1)) does cover photographs, but the scope is narrow. Using a photograph to illustrate an article about a different subject or embedding an image because it is visually relevant rather than because the image itself is the subject of commentary, is unlikely to qualify.

Research and private study (section 29): fair dealing with a work for non-commercial research or private study does not infringe copyright. This does not extend to commercial website use.

Incidental inclusion (section 31): if a copyright image is incidentally included in another work, for example, a photograph of a street scene that happens to include a billboard poster. This does not infringe copyright in the incidentally included work. "Incidental" requires genuine lack of deliberate inclusion. Using a photograph of a branded product where the brand is deliberately visible is not incidental inclusion.

Text and data mining (section 29A): non-commercial research involving computational analysis of works to which the researcher has lawful access does not infringe copyright. This exception applies to datasets and research processes, not to reproducing images on a website.

What EU DSM Directive changes did not transfer to UK law

The EU Digital Single Market Directive (Directive 2019/790, implemented by member states by 2021) introduced several provisions that do not apply to UK law:

Article 15. Press publishers' right: EU member states must provide a new neighbouring right for press publishers, allowing them to seek licence fees from online platforms that aggregate or display news content. This right does not exist in UK law. UK news publishers do not have an EU-style press publishers' right enforceable against UK aggregation platforms.

Articles 3 and 4, text and data mining: the DSM Directive created an exception for research organisations for any TDM (Article 3) and a commercial TDM exception subject to rightholder opt-out (Article 4). The commercial TDM exception is broader than anything in UK law. UK businesses doing commercial AI training or data mining for commercial purposes do not benefit from an Article 4 equivalent. The UK government's 2022 consultation proposed a broader UK TDM exception, but this had not been legislated as of 2026.

Article 17, upload filters: the DSM Directive requires large online content-sharing platforms to make "best efforts" to obtain licences for content uploaded by users and to prevent the upload of infringing content. This obligation does not apply to UK platforms.

Sports event organisers' rights: some EU member states have created a national neighbouring right for sports event organisers. The UK has no equivalent. This right is national, not a DSM Directive provision.

The UK orphan works licensing scheme

An orphan work is a copyright work whose rights holder cannot be identified or located after a diligent search. Under sections 116A-116D CDPA (inserted by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013), the IPO operates a licensing scheme for orphan works. An applicant who has conducted a diligent search and cannot locate the rights holder can apply to the IPO for a licence to use the work.

The scheme is available to any individual, organisation, business or body in the UK. Licences can last up to seven years and require payment of an application fee and a licence fee (held for the rights holder if they emerge). Licences can be non-exclusive and are limited to specified uses. The IPO publishes guidance on what constitutes a diligent search for different categories of work, including photographs.

The EU also has orphan works provisions under Directive 2012/28/EU, but these apply only within EU member states. The UK's scheme and the EU scheme are legally independent. A UK business using an orphan work under a UK IPO licence has no standing under EU orphan works law to use that work in EU member states and vice versa.

UK copyright enforcement in practice

UK courts have been active in copyright disputes involving images. In November 2025, the English High Court handed down its judgment in Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). Getty brought claims over the scraping of its image library to train the Stable Diffusion AI model. The court rejected the secondary copyright infringement claim, finding that the AI model's outputs could not be shown to derive directly from the stored training data. Getty succeeded in part on trade mark grounds for older versions of the model. The case illustrates that UK copyright law, as applied by UK courts, does not map directly onto EU copyright doctrine and that novel fact patterns in image use require careful analysis under CDPA 1988 specifically.

For day-to-day website operators, enforcement looks rather different. Automated infringement detection and letter-writing campaigns by agencies remain active in the UK.

Copyright claim letters: UK website operators

UK website operators receive copyright claim letters from image enforcement agencies, most commonly Getty Images, Corbis (part of Getty), Alamy and agency representatives such as PicRights. These letters assert infringement and demand a licensing fee, typically many times the market rate for retrospective licensing.

In the UK context, the legal basis is CDPA 1988, not EU law. The key questions to consider before responding are:

Is the claimed image actually protected by UK copyright? Most photographs are. But generated images, very old photographs that are out of copyright or images released under open licences may not be protected.

Does the claimant have standing? The claimant must be the rights holder or an exclusive licensee with the right to sue. Some enforcement agencies act as exclusive licensees, others act as non-exclusive licensees or as agents, which may affect their standing.

Is there a UK CDPA exception that applies? Review the fair dealing and incidental inclusion exceptions described above.

Was the image actually displayed on the website? Check server logs and the Wayback Machine. Claims are sometimes made for images that were briefly uploaded and immediately removed or that appeared as a result of a third-party embed rather than direct hosting.

Is the claimed amount reasonable? Enforcement agencies typically demand several hundred to several thousand pounds for retrospective use. The measure of damage under CDPA section 97 is the actual or notional licence fee, not a punitive multiple. Courts have awarded the licence fee rate, not the enforcement agency's demanded rate, in the cases that have proceeded to judgment.

For background on whether to ignore a claim letter at all, see Should you ignore a copyright claim letter?. For a current check of third-party scripts and trackers on your site, run a free scan at /uk/en/scan.