Evidence
Asset-level provenance, metadata and forensic analysis.
Gate 01 → AI content assessment and insurance · Europe
Assessment and insurance
for commercial AI assets.
A three-stage service combining asset-level technical analysis, advertising Business Affairs clearance and project-specific insurance for approved AI-generated and AI-modified campaigns.
Affirmative IP protectionSubject to specialist underwriting
Campaign-specific coverAttached to identified asset versions
Evidence before placementTechnical and rights assessment
Integrated assessment methodology
Three stages.
One controlled record.
The service consolidates technical evidence, rights review and underwriting information into an asset-specific campaign dossier.
Clearance
Advertising Business Affairs review of rights, references and usage.
Gate 02 →Cover
Affirmative, project-specific protection for approved commercial assets.
Gate 03 →Proposed insurance scope
Coverage attached to specified assets.
Subject to insurer approval and final policy wording, cover is intended to respond to defined third-party copyright and related intellectual-property claims arising from the scheduled AI-generated or AI-modified campaign assets. It is not general cover for AI model performance.
Selected litigation and claims context
AI-generated outputs present
multiple rights exposures.
Current disputes illustrate how commercial imagery, protected characters, creator works and brand identifiers may give rise to distinct legal theories. The assessment methodology addresses each category separately.
Alcon v. Tesla
After permission to use Blade Runner 2049 imagery was allegedly refused, an AI-generated lookalike appeared at Tesla’s Cybercab launch. The copyright claim survived a motion to dismiss.
AI did not break the chain of liability.Review source ↗Studios v. Midjourney
Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. allege generated outputs reproduced protected characters. Major claims have been allowed to continue.
A generic prompt can still produce specific protected elements.Review source ↗Getty v. Stability AI
Getty’s remaining UK copyright theory failed, but limited trademark infringement was found where generated outputs displayed Getty or iStock marks.
One asset can create several different rights questions.Review source ↗Andersen v. Stability AI
Visual artists challenged image-generation companies over training and generated outputs. Multiple infringement theories proceeded into discovery.
Claims do not come only from major studios.Review source ↗These matters have different procedural histories and do not represent equivalent findings of liability. Summaries distinguish allegations from reported judicial outcomes and are supplied for market context only, not as legal advice.
European regulatory framework
EU AI Act controls
from 2 August 2026.
The assessment records the transparency analysis relevant to Article 50 alongside—without conflating it with—copyright, advertising, privacy and contractual clearance.
Machine-readable marking
Review available marking and provenance information for generated or manipulated content and preserve it through the approved final export where applicable.
Disclosure assessment
Document whether Article 50 disclosure obligations apply to the content, including the relevant classification, exceptions and rationale.
Independent rights analysis
AI Act transparency does not establish copyright clearance. Intellectual property, likeness, privacy and chain of title require separate review.
Designed for real productions
What gets reviewed.
- Final asset identity
- Provenance signals
- Creation inputs
- Potential risk indicators
- Copyright and trademarks
- Talent and image rights
- Source permissions
- Chain of creation
- GDPR and privacy
- EU AI Act duties
- Content transparency
- Release requirements
- Approved asset set
- Declared campaign usage
- Agreed limit and term
- Controlled version changes
Operational workflow
From asset submission
to underwriting decision.
- ScopeRecord campaign assets, intended media, territories, duration and source/reference materials.
- AnalyseExtract metadata, examine provenance signals and document relevant forensic indicators.
- AssessBusiness Affairs classifies each issue for approval, conditions, remediation or specialist legal referral.
- SubmitApproved master hashes and the completed dossier are provided to an authorised insurance partner for underwriting.
A material change to an approved master requires reassessment. Any certificate or insurance schedule applies only to the identified asset version and declared campaign use.
Pilot service model
Start with the evidence.
Add cover when needed.
Scan
from €750Up to 10 final masters- Metadata + provenance
- Reference inventory
- Forensic indicators
Most complete
Assure
from €2,500Scan + BA review- Rights and chain-of-title review
- EU AI Act control record
- Underwriter-ready dossier
Cover
Bespoke quoteAffirmative project protection- Named approved assets
- Agreed IP claims + defence
- Limits, term and territory
Pilot prices are indicative service fees. Insurance premium and availability depend on underwriting and final policy wording.
Specialist operating model
Defined responsibility at each stage.
The service coordinates technical review, advertising Business Affairs and insurance preparation. Regulated legal advice and insurance placement are provided by appropriately authorised external partners where required.
Technical assessmentDocumented and reviewable asset evidence
Advertising Business AffairsRights and usage assessment informed by production practice
European legal counselJurisdiction-specific advice and formal opinions when required
Authorised insurance partnerUnderwriting, policy issuance and claims handling
For brands, agencies, production companies and AI studios
Request an assessment
of a defined campaign.
Contact the assessment team ↗Proofmark is a working venture concept. Findings are limited to the submitted materials, declared usage and stated jurisdictions. Insurance remains subject to authorised partner placement, underwriting, premium and final policy wording. The service does not itself constitute jurisdiction-specific legal advice.