Using AI Content in Poland Without IP Controls Is a Risk

Your AI-Generated Marketing Could Be a Legal Liability — Even in Poland

If You’re Using AI to Create Content for Your Polish Business, Read This First

Disney just sued an AI company for $22 million. If you’re running a business in Poland and using tools like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion to generate marketing graphics, product images, or branding materials, that lawsuit has your name written all over it — even if you’ve never prompted a single cartoon character.

Here’s what most foreign entrepreneurs operating in Poland don’t realize: Polish copyright law holds the publisher of infringing content responsible, not the AI tool that created it. That means you, not Midjourney, are on the hook the moment you hit “publish.”

What the Disney vs. Midjourney Lawsuit Actually Means for Your Business

In 2025, Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studios, and DreamWorks Animation filed a federal lawsuit in Los Angeles against Midjourney. The core allegations: Midjourney scraped protected visual content to train its AI model without permission, and its platform allows users to generate images that closely replicate protected characters like Darth Vader, Elsa, Shrek, and the Minions.

The damages sought exceed $22 million, calculated at up to $150,000 per infringed work across more than 150 titles. The plaintiffs also want a court injunction to block Midjourney’s planned video generation service.

This isn’t an isolated case. Similar lawsuits are moving through US courts right now: Andersen v. Stability AI, Getty Images v. Stability AI, and The New York Times v. OpenAI. None have produced a final verdict yet, but the trend is unmistakable. Major rights holders are aggressively pursuing AI companies, and the legal framework is catching up fast.

The key takeaway for you as a business operator: the outcome of these cases will directly affect the tools you use, the terms of service governing those tools, and your exposure to third-party IP claims.

Poland’s Copyright Law Is Stricter Than You Might Expect

If you’re used to operating under US copyright law, Poland’s framework will surprise you in one critical way. In the US, intent and knowledge matter significantly in copyright infringement cases. In Poland, copyright infringement is treated as an objective violation. You don’t have to know you infringed. You just have to have done it.

That distinction is enormous for any business using AI-generated content. If your Polish e-commerce startup publishes a product graphic that contains elements resembling a protected character, and you had no idea the AI pulled from protected training data, you are still the direct infringer under Polish law. Not Midjourney. Not Stable Diffusion. You.

Under Article 79 of Poland’s Copyright Act, the rights holder can demand that you stop the infringement, remove all infringing materials, pay actual damages plus lost profits, surrender any gains you made from the infringement, and pay additional compensation for violations of moral rights. That’s a broad and powerful set of remedies, and Polish courts take them seriously.

There’s also a painful paradox built into this system. Polish copyright law requires that a protected work reflect individual human creative expression. AI-generated content, produced without meaningful human creative input, doesn’t qualify for copyright protection in Poland. So you can’t protect your AI-generated assets, but you can absolutely be held liable if those same assets infringe someone else’s rights.

The practical implication: You’re carrying all the downside risk with none of the upside protection.

The EU Regulatory Layer That American Entrepreneurs Often Miss

Operating in Poland means operating inside the European Union’s regulatory framework, and the EU has moved faster than the US on AI governance. Two pieces of legislation matter most here.

The DSM Directive and the Opt-Out Mechanism

The EU’s Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive, 2019/790) allows commercial text and data mining, including AI model training, unless a rights holder has explicitly opted out in a machine-readable format. Think of it as a “use our content unless we say otherwise” default. Poland implemented this directive in September 2024.

This matters because major rights organizations are already exercising that opt-out. Poland’s equivalent of ASCAP, an organization called ZAiKS, announced in December 2024 that it had formally opted out on behalf of the creators it represents, blocking commercial AI training on their works. As more rights holders follow suit, the legal exposure for AI tool providers, and by extension their users, grows.

The EU AI Act

Starting August 2, 2025, the EU AI Act’s Chapter V provisions require providers of general-purpose AI models (GPAI), think GPT, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, to publish documentation about their training data, implement copyright compliance policies, and respect opt-out mechanisms. Penalties for violations reach up to 35 million euros or 7% of global revenue.

Here’s where it gets directly relevant to your business: if you’re building a product on top of Midjourney’s or Stable Diffusion’s API, you may qualify as an AI system provider under the AI Act. That classification comes with its own compliance obligations, and most foreign entrepreneurs don’t see it coming until they’re already in due diligence.

The EU AI Act also introduced an AI literacy requirement that took effect February 2, 2025. If your team is using AI tools without any formal training or guidelines, regulators could treat that as a failure of due diligence.

Key EU AI Act Timeline for Poland-Based Businesses

Four Real-World Scenarios That Could Hit Your Business

These aren’t hypotheticals. Each of these scenarios reflects the kind of situation that foreign-owned businesses in Poland are navigating right now.

Scenario 1: The Invisible Infringement
Your Polish e-commerce operation uses Midjourney to generate product graphics at scale. One image contains visual elements that resemble a protected character. You don’t notice. The rights holder sends a cease-and-desist. You pull the materials, redesign your packaging, and face a damages claim. Total cost: far more than the $10/month Midjourney subscription.

Scenario 2: The Agency Gap
You hire a Polish marketing agency to produce AI-generated graphics for a campaign. The agency delivers. You publish. One image triggers an IP claim. You go back to the agency, but your contract has no clause addressing AI-generated content or IP liability. You absorb the loss.

Scenario 3: The API Dependency Problem
You’ve built a SaaS product on top of Midjourney’s or Stable Diffusion’s API. After a major court ruling, the provider changes its terms of service or restricts functionality. You have to rebuild your product under time pressure. Your investors are not happy.

Scenario 4: The Due Diligence Surprise
You’re raising a Series A. The investor’s legal team reviews your IP portfolio and discovers that your branding and marketing materials were AI-generated without any IP verification process. They either reduce your valuation or walk away entirely. Clean IP chains matter in European M&A and investment transactions, and this is an area where US founders often get caught off guard.

A Practical Action Plan for Foreign Entrepreneurs in Poland

You don’t need to stop using AI tools. You need to use them with a clear process. Here’s what to do now.

1. Audit your existing AI-generated content.
Go through every graphic, marketing asset, and piece of branded content your team has generated with AI tools. Flag anything that could resemble a known character, logo, or brand identity. Prioritize materials that are publicly visible or commercially active.

2. Build an internal AI use policy.
Define which tools are approved, prohibit prompts that reference known brands or characters by name, and require a review step before any AI-generated content goes live. This is your first line of defense and your evidence of due diligence if a claim arises.

3. Read the terms of service on every AI tool you use.
Ask three specific questions: Who bears liability for IP infringement in generated content?

Does the provider offer any IP indemnification? If so, does it actually protect you, or does it protect the provider? Most AI tool terms of service shift IP risk entirely to the user.

4. Update your contracts with freelancers and agencies.
Add clauses requiring disclosure of AI tool usage, representations about IP clearance, and clear allocation of liability if a third-party claim arises. This is standard practice in US tech contracts and should be standard in your Polish vendor agreements too.

5. Train your marketing and product teams.
Use the Disney vs. Midjourney case as a concrete teaching example. Show your team what “safe prompting” looks like and establish a review workflow before publication.

6. Start a content registry.
Document every piece of AI-generated content: the date, the tool, the prompt, and the intended use. This protects you in future disputes and positions you for compliance with the EU AI Act’s mandatory content labeling requirement, which takes effect August 2, 2026.

7. Evaluate IP verification tools.
Reverse image search, Content Credentials (C2PA), AI content detectors, and plagiarism checkers won’t give you perfect protection, but they catch the most obvious problems before they become expensive ones.

Key Takeaways

• Polish copyright law holds the publisher of infringing content liable, regardless of intent or knowledge. If you publish AI-generated content that infringes, you are the infringer, not the AI tool.
• AI-generated content has no copyright protection in Poland, but it can still infringe someone else’s rights. You carry all the risk with none of the protection.
• The EU AI Act and DSM Directive create compliance obligations that go beyond US law. If you’re building on AI APIs, you may already qualify as an AI system provider under EU rules.
• Your AI tool’s terms of service almost certainly shift IP liability to you. Read them before you publish anything commercially.
• Proactive documentation, internal policies, and updated vendor contracts are your best protection against claims, investor scrutiny, and regulatory exposure.

The Window for Getting Ahead of This Is Still Open

The Disney vs. Midjourney lawsuit is a signal, not just a headline. The era of using generative AI without any IP governance process is ending, and the businesses that build clean, documented, policy-driven AI workflows now will have a significant advantage when the regulatory and litigation environment tightens further.

Poland is a sophisticated, fast-growing market with a well-educated workforce and deep integration into the EU’s digital economy. Foreign entrepreneurs who treat it as a serious jurisdiction, with serious legal obligations, will build more durable businesses here. The ones who treat it as a regulatory backwater will get an expensive education. Get your AI house in order now, while the cost of doing so is still manageable.

Frequently Asked Questions

If my company publishes AI-generated marketing content in Poland, who is legally responsible if it infringes someone else’s copyright?
Your company is liable — not the AI tool. Polish copyright law treats infringement as an objective violation, meaning intent and knowledge are irrelevant. The moment you hit “publish,” you become the direct infringer under Article 79 of Poland’s Copyright Act, which gives rights holders the power to demand you stop, remove materials, pay damages, surrender profits, and pay compensation for moral rights violations.

Can my company copyright AI-generated images or branding materials in Poland?
No. Polish copyright law requires a protected work to reflect individual human creative expression, and AI-generated content produced without meaningful human creative input does not meet that standard. The painful paradox: you cannot protect your AI-generated assets, but you can absolutely be held liable if those same assets infringe someone else’s rights — all downside risk, no upside protection.

What does the Disney v. Midjourney lawsuit actually mean for businesses using AI tools in Poland?
The lawsuit signals that major rights holders are aggressively pursuing AI companies over unauthorized use of protected content, and the outcomes will directly affect the tools you use, their terms of service, and your exposure to third-party IP claims. For a Poland-based business, the risk compounds because Polish copyright law holds you — the publisher — liable regardless of whether you knew the AI output contained infringing elements. If a court ruling forces a provider like Midjourney to change its terms or restrict functionality, any product or workflow you built on that tool could break overnight.

If I build a product on top of Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, could my company count as an AI system provider under the EU AI Act?
Yes. If you are building a product on top of Midjourney’s or Stable Diffusion’s API, you may qualify as an AI system provider under the EU AI Act, which carries its own compliance obligations — including training data documentation and copyright compliance policies starting August 2, 2025. Most foreign entrepreneurs do not see this classification coming until they are already in due diligence with investors or regulators.

What should my company do right now to reduce IP risk when using AI-generated content in Poland?
Start with an audit of every AI-generated graphic, marketing asset, and branded material your team has produced — flag anything that could resemble a known character, logo, or brand identity. Then build an internal AI use policy that defines approved tools, prohibits prompts referencing known brands or characters, and requires a review step before publication. In parallel, update your contracts with freelancers and agencies to include AI disclosure requirements and IP liability allocation, start a content registry documenting every AI-generated asset (date, tool, prompt, intended use), and train your team on safe prompting practices.