Chapter 10

Legal and honesty

This is the chapter that decides whether Housewarmly is a business or an incident. It is written to be handed to a solicitor, not to reassure anybody. Nothing here is legal advice.

The position in five sentences

The product reproduces a photograph somebody else owns, collected from a site whose terms forbid collecting it, and prints the result commercially. No UK copyright exception covers this, and the Government confirmed on 18 March 2026 that it is not changing the law.S36 The portals' terms are breached by the act of automated access alone, which is a far easier claim for them to bring than copyright.S38 The advertising position is separately serious, because the Advertising Standards Authority treats before-and-after imagery as requiring signed proof that the photographs have not been manipulated, which an AI render cannot ever meet.S41 Everything else in this guide assumes these four sentences are told to every customer, every partner and every investor, first.

10.1 The risk register, in order

#	Risk	Confidence in the analysis	What it does to us if it happens
1	Portal terms of use, plus database right. Rightmove and Zoopla forbid automated collection by name; a claim needs no proof of copying.S38 S39	Very high on breach, high on database right subsisting	The highest-probability existential event. An injunction ends the business overnight.
2	Copyright in the listing photograph. Reproduction of a substantial part under CDPA s.17, with no exception available.S31 S37	High that no exception applies	The foundational risk. It has no mitigation short of changing where the image comes from.
3	Misleading advertising. CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.11 and the before-and-after guidance; DMCC Act 2024 s.226.S41 S42	High on the framework, outcome depends entirely on how conservative the renders are	Falls on the installer, who is the party least able to manage it, which makes it our problem commercially even where it is not ours legally.
4	UK GDPR fairness, lawful basis and Article 14 transparency.S40	High on the requirements, moderate on whether the balancing test survives	Largely solvable by design. See 10.5.
5	Trade marks and watermarks. Agent branding surviving into an output.S35	Moderate	Cheap to mitigate, embarrassing if ignored. It is the one point Getty actually won.
6	Moral rights. CDPA s.80, derogatory treatment, a personal claim by the photographer that survives any licence from the agent.S34	Low to moderate that a claim succeeds, high that it is available	Low value, high nuisance.
7	The seller's personal data inside the photographs. Possessions, correspondence, family photographs, occasionally people.S40	Moderate	A genuine Article 14 gap we cannot close, because there is no route to notify the seller.
8	The image model provider's input-rights warranty.	not checked	Unknown, and it must be checked before launch. Every major provider requires a warranty that you hold the rights to your inputs, with an indemnity running from us to them. This is an expectation, not a checked fact.

10.2 Copyright, said plainly

Who owns a listing photograph

Under CDPA 1988 s.11 the author is the first owner, and the employer owns it only where the work was made by an employee in the course of employment.S31 There is no commissioning provision in the 1988 Act, which means a freelance photographer engaged by an estate agent keeps legal title unless there is a written assignment. Confirmed by Robin Ray v Classic FM, approved in Griggs v Evans: commissioning alone does not entitle the client to the copyright.S32

The commercial consequence, which is worse than it first sounds. The rights holder for any given listing photograph is unknown to us at the moment we fetch it, and is frequently neither the portal nor the agent. There is no single counterparty we could go and license from at scale. Any agent agreement must therefore carry a warranty of ownership or authority to license, plus an indemnity, because the agent may hold only an implied licence itself.

Is the render a copy?

Two points, and the second is the one that hurts.

UK law has no adaptation right for artistic works. CDPA s.21 restricts adaptation of literary, dramatic and musical works only.S31 So the question is not "is this a derivative work", which is the American question. It is the narrower s.17 question: does the output reproduce a substantial part of the photograph in a material form?
The product's entire selling proposition is the answer to that question. The render is persuasive precisely because it is recognisably that room: same window, same wall, same viewpoint, same light. Our own render contract instructs the model to keep the exact geometry, camera viewpoint and window and door positions.S6 A photograph's protected creation includes angle, framing and composition. We are, on this analysis, instructing a machine to reproduce the compositional choices of the photograph.

The nearest authority is Temple Island Collections v New English Teas, where an independently shot photograph from a different vantage point was still held to reproduce a substantial part, because it kept the composition of the scene.S33 The counter-argument is real but it is an argument, not a safe harbour: a flat, functional estate-agency room shot with no creative post-processing sits close to what that judgment called a "mere photograph", with thin originality. Against that, s.4(1)(a) protects photographs irrespective of artistic quality.

The exceptions, and why none of them helps

Exception	What it says	Why it fails here
s.29A text and data mining	Requires lawful access, permits copying "for the sole purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose", and s.29A(2) makes it an infringement if the copy is transferred to another person or used for any other purposeS37	We are commercial. A research corpus cannot lawfully migrate into a product. The UK has no commercial TDM exception.
s.28A temporary copies	Transient or incidental copies with "no independent economic significance", enabling a lawful useS37	The copy exists to enable the render, which is the economic point of the product. Circular, and it presupposes the underlying use is lawful.
s.29 research and private study	Non-commercial research, or private studyS37	Lead generation is neither.
s.30(2) reporting current events	Fair dealing "with a work other than a photograph"S37	Parliament carved photographs out of the news exception expressly. Courts read that as a deliberate signal that photographs get less headroom, not more.

What Getty settles, and what it does not

Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), judgment 4 November 2025.S35 It is the case everyone cites and almost everyone misreports.

Getty abandoned the training claim, because there was no evidence the training took place in the United Kingdom, and the outputs claim was substantially resolved when Stability blocked the prompts. The court decided neither.
Getty won the point that an "article" can be an electronic copy stored intangibly.
Getty lost the secondary infringement claim, because the model weights do not store the works.
Getty won narrowly on trade marks, under ss.10(1) and 10(2), on watermarks reproduced into outputs by early model versions.
Getty was granted permission to appeal the secondary infringement dismissal on 16 December 2025, the judge describing it as a novel and important pure question of law.S35 Do not build a position that depends on that finding surviving.

Why Getty is not comfort. Getty is about whether a general-purpose model is an infringing article. Housewarmly does something categorically different and much simpler to attack: it takes one identified copyright photograph as a direct input and produces one output derived from that specific image, and sells it. That is a plain s.17 substantial-part question, and Getty leaves it entirely open. The watermark finding is a live warning, because agent branding is routinely burned into listing photographs.

Government policy has moved against us, and says so

Under ss.135 to 137 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 the Government was required to report on copyright and AI, and did so on 18 March 2026. Those sections create reporting duties only. They do not amend the CDPA.S36 The impact assessment says the Government "will not introduce reforms to copyright law until we are confident that they will meet our objectives", notes there is no consensus, and does not establish a preferred option going forward.

Anyone who says the law is about to change, so this is fine, is wrong on the current record. As at 9 September 2026 UK copyright law is unchanged: no commercial TDM exception, no AI training carve-out, no rights-reservation regime. The status quo continues.S36

10.3 The portals, quoted

Rightmove, terms of use last updated February 2026

Clause 5.2 prohibits, in terms, using "bots, crawlers, scrapers or other automated programs or means to access or collect data or other content from or otherwise interact with the Platform".S38

Clause 5.5.1 is tighter than most people assume. Without prior written consent from Rightmove's legal team, users must not "access the Platform in order to obtain information available from it, or extract or seek to extract information from the Platform, other than by means of direct human interaction with the menu system, hyperlinks and search and filter functions displayed on the human-readable pages".S38

Clause 5.6 adds that a business user "may not use the Platform for any other research purposes related to the property market or our members, particularly where such research is intended for commercial gain".S38

Clause 8.3 forbids copying, reproducing, adapting, altering, modifying, storing or creating derivative works of any material downloaded from the platform without written consent.S38

There is no reading of these terms on which either the automated or the manual version of the product is permitted. A human installer manually saving a photograph is arguably inside 5.5.1, and is then caught squarely by 8.3. This is the sentence to give a solicitor first.

Zoopla, which is harder

Zoopla's terms state that users "must not use any part of the content on our Site for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence from us to do so", and then, in the very next sentence: "This includes not using the content on our Site for the purposes of developing or contributing towards a solution utilising artificial intelligence."S39

A separate clause bars text and data mining and web scraping outright, and another says users must not "use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences separately from accompanying text", which the render breaches on its own.S39

One honest uncertainty. The Zoopla terms page reported a last-updated date of November 2023 despite carrying an explicit AI clause. Treat that date as unverified and re-check before relying on it.S39

Is there a legitimate route to buy instead?

Both portals sell data. Neither advertises a licence to reuse listing photographs. Rightmove Data Services sells asking prices, price reductions, rental yields, new listings, available stock, sales agreed, time on market, unique enquirers, calls and emails, to consultants, lenders, local authorities, surveyors and developers.S38 Zoopla sits inside Houseful, whose Hometrack arm sells "Property Listings Data" powered by Zoopla data, plus comparables and market intelligence.S43

The decisive gap, and the one enquiry that would close it. Everything documented on both sides is numeric market data. Neither could easily license photographs anyway, because the portals frequently do not own them. Neither provider's actual licence terms could be obtained: both are enquiry-gated. Put the specific question to both in writing: does any product you sell license the reuse and modification of listing photography? The expectation is no, and that expectation is an inference, not a verified fact.S43

Enforcement, honestly

No publicly reported UK court action by Rightmove or Zoopla against a scraper was found, and it was looked for specifically.S38 That is "not found", not "does not happen". Cease-and-desist letters, IP blocking and account termination are not published.

The nearest real precedent is 77m Ltd v Ordnance Survey [2019] EWHC 3007 (Ch): a company built a competing address database, was found to have scraped 3.5 million addresses from HM Land Registry's Find a Property service in breach of the applicable terms, and infringed database right because of the substantial investment in verification.S44 Property-sector data, scraped in breach of site terms, infringing both database right and contract. English courts do enforce here.

10.4 The advertising position, which nobody had flagged

This is the newest finding in the guide and it is the one most likely to be underestimated, because it does not feel like a legal problem. It is.

The CAP Code applies: marketing communications must not materially mislead (3.1), must not exaggerate the capability or performance of a product (3.11), and marketers must hold documentary evidence for objective claims (3.7).S41

The ASA's guidance on AI in advertising, published 29 May 2025, says use of AI should be transparent where it features prominently and is unlikely to be obvious, and then adds the sentence that removes the easy fix:

"disclosure alone is very unlikely to mitigate the harm caused by a fundamentally misleading message" "it is likely to be materially misleading to include an AI generated image showing the effect of a cosmetic product that does not accurately reflect real-world results and rely on a disclosure that AI was used to rebut the misleading impression created"

And CAP's own before-and-after guidance, which treats such images as testimonials under rules 3.47 to 3.50:

"Marketers must hold signed and dated proof that the photos are genuine and have not been manipulated." "If the advertisement is inherently misleading, it remains so regardless of any superimposed disclaimer or qualification."

Read that against our pack. The pack is functionally a before-and-after: here is your kitchen, here is your kitchen after we fit it. Signed and dated proof that the photographs have not been manipulated is a standard an AI render cannot meet by definition. The cosmetics example is the exact structural analogue. Saying "AI visualisation" in small print does not cure a misleading impression.S41

Separately and statutorily, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 revoked the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and its unfair commercial practices regime came into force on 6 April 2025. Section 226 catches "an overall presentation which is likely to deceive the average consumer", and subsection (3) states that an overall presentation may be deceiving even if the information it contains is true.S42 It is enforced by the CMA and trading standards, and s.240 creates criminal offences.

What this means for the artefact, concretely

The render must be constrained to what is achievable

No invented extensions, no moved or resized windows, no removed structural walls, no impossible ceiling heights.
Only products the installer actually sells, at their true widths. The fit engine already drops an appliance it is confident will not go in.S6
The known window drift of 15% to 37% is not just a quality bug. It is an advertising exposure.S6

The disclosure must be unmissable, not a footer

"AI visualisation, indicative only" belongs at a size a person reads, on the page carrying the renders, not only on the back.
Never imply the installer completed that work. That misrepresentation of provenance is what turned £300 of damages into £6,300 in Absolute Lofts.S34
The measured plan page must keep saying it is an indicative layout read from a floorplan.

The uncomfortable allocation. The pack carries the installer's brand, so under the CAP Code and the DMCC Act the installer is the advertiser and the trader on the hook, while we supply the tool. That must be allocated honestly in the terms rather than pretended away. And note the trap: if we indemnify installers to make the sale easier, we have taken the ASA and trading standards risk onto our own balance sheet.

10.5 Direct mail, where the position is genuinely good

This is the one area where the design already does the right thing, and it should be defended rather than quietly changed.

Question	Answer	Source
Is postal marketing covered by PECR?	No. The ICO's own table records postal marketing as "No requirement (not covered by PECR)"	S40
What lawful basis applies under UK GDPR?	Legitimate interests or consent. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 moved the direct-marketing example into the body of Article 6(1)(f) with effect from 5 February 2026, which the ICO describes as clarifying that direct marketing can be a legitimate interest	S40
Is direct marketing a "recognised legitimate interest", so no balancing test?	No. That list covers crime prevention, public security, national security, safeguarding, emergencies and public-task disclosures. A full three-part assessment is still required	S40
If we name the recipient, when must the privacy information be given?	Article 14: within a month, and at the latest when the first communication takes place, including the categories of data and where we got it from	S40
Is Mailing Preference Service screening mandatory?	No. Unlike TPS and CTPS, MPS is not statutory. It is a DMA Code obligation for members and strong evidence of fairness in a balancing test	S40
Where can the address come from?	HM Land Registry Price Paid Data is open data under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and gives address, price and completion date. It contains no buyer or seller names at all. Royal Mail's PAF gives 32 million delivery addresses and business names, never residential occupier names	S40

The design decision, and the reason for it. Address the pack to "The Homeowner". Price Paid Data plus PAF supports exactly that and nothing more, because neither carries a resident's name.S40 Unnamed addressing keeps the UK GDPR footprint minimal, removes the Article 14 first-communication burden, and removes the need for data-broker due diligence. Naming the occupant would be a marginal uplift in response for a categorical increase in legal cost. Do not do it.

The fairness problem, which is the biggest non-obvious risk in this chapter. Article 5(1)(a) requires processing to be fair, and the ICO's balancing turns on reasonable expectations. Consider how the mailing lands: a stranger has posted you an altered photograph of the inside of your own new home, days after you moved in. Even where every element is technically defensible, fair and within reasonable expectations are the tests this fails most plausibly, and it is the fact pattern that generates press coverage rather than a letter. The mitigations are transparency and restraint: say where the image came from, make the AI nature unmissable, make objecting trivial, and never imply anyone has been inside the property.

A gap that cannot be closed by design. Listing photographs routinely show the seller's possessions, correspondence on worktops, family photographs and occasionally people. Processing them processes the seller's personal data, and the seller is a person we have no relationship with and no route to notify. Enforcement likelihood is low. The gap is real and it should be stated rather than argued away.

10.6 The mitigations, ranked by how much they actually do

Change where the image comes from

Ask the homeowner for the photograph, or have the installer take it at a booked survey. This eliminates the copyright question, both portals' terms, the database right claim and the model provider's warranty problem in one move.S38

And it costs the ability to mail cold, which is the actual product. That is a real trade-off, not a free fix. It is worth stating plainly that the entire top half of the risk register exists only because the images are taken from the portals without permission.

Removes risks 1, 2, 5 and 8 · removes the business as designed

Contract with an agency group or a CRM vendor

The agent-side CRM feeds carry what the pipeline needs under per-agent, revocable authorisation, and this is business development rather than engineering.S43 The agreement must carry a warranty of ownership or authority to license, and an indemnity, because the agent may hold only an implied licence itself.

Caveat that must not be lost: an agent agreement cannot cure the photographer's underlying copyright, and Rightmove's agent-facing membership terms reportedly vest proprietorship of the uploaded copy in Rightmove, which would determine whether an agent can consent to onward use at all. That document has not been obtained.S43

Substantially reduces risks 1 and 2 · the single most valuable non-engineering task in the plan

Keep the installer pasting the link, and do not build the crawler

Today the installer chooses the listing and pastes the URL. That does not make the position lawful, but it keeps the volume low, keeps the activity human-initiated, and keeps us out of the fact pattern that 77m punished, which was automated bulk extraction at scale.S44

Reduces exposure on risk 1 · caps the self-demonstrating channel's ceiling, which chapter 04 already says

Strip watermarks and agent branding before rendering, always

Getty's only win was on watermarks surviving into outputs.S35 A surviving agent logo also creates an implied-endorsement problem: the pack could read as though the estate agent endorses the installer.

Removes risk 5 · cheap, and it should be a pipeline step rather than a hope

Constrain the render and enlarge the disclosure

Everything in 10.4. This addresses risk 3 and nothing else, and it does not touch risks 1 or 2.

Necessary, and nowhere near sufficient

Read the image model provider's terms before the first paid pack

Unchecked, and it is a one-hour task that could invalidate a supplier relationship.

Do this in week one

10.7 What we say out loud, and to whom

Audience	What they get told, unprompted	What we must never say
An installer	"The photograph belongs to the estate agent's photographer, not to you and not to us. The pack credits it. If you want this at volume it has to go through an agreement with an agency, and we are working on that."	"It's fine, everyone does it." It is not fine and not everyone does.
A homeowner who asks	Where the image came from, that it is an AI visualisation, how to object, and that nobody has been inside their home.	Anything implying the installer has done that work, or that the room will look like that.
A supplier or manufacturer	The whole of 10.1 to 10.3, before they ask. Their legal function will find it in the first hour, and finding it themselves is worse than being told.	Any claim that the position is settled or that the law is about to change.
An investor or acquirer	That the data supply is not currently lawful at industrial volume, and that solving it is the gating item.	A response rate we have not measured, or a market size we cannot source.

The small print on the pack today

AI visualisation, indicative only. Source photography (c) the listing agent. Not affiliated with the selling agent or portal.

That is honest disclosure and it is not a defence.S6 It should stay, it should get bigger, and it should be joined by a line saying where the address came from and how to ask us to stop. Nobody should mistake it for having dealt with anything in this chapter.

10.8 What is not settled, listed so nobody assumes it is

Whether any product from Rightmove or Hometrack licenses reuse and modification of listing photography. Both are enquiry-gated. This is the single question most worth asking in writing.S43
Rightmove's agent-facing General Membership Terms, which reportedly vest proprietorship of the uploaded copy in Rightmove. Not obtained. It determines whether the agent route works at all.S43
The Getty appeal. Permission granted 16 December 2025; no Court of Appeal outcome as at 9 September 2026.S35
The Computer Misuse Act position on automated access in breach of terms. Commonly raised in scraping advice and not verified here either way.S38
The CMA's direct-fining powers under the DMCC Act. Widely reported as up to 10% of global turnover, not verified against the legislation. Do not quote a figure.S42
The current DMA Code wording on MPS. Confirm with the DMA before stating it.S40
The image model provider's input warranty. Not checked.
UK regulatory guidance specific to AI-generated or virtually staged property images. None found. The disclosure rules that exist for property specifically are all American.

A note on how this chapter was made. Every statute quotation was taken from legislation.gov.uk, every portal clause from the live terms page, and every ASA quotation from the ASA's own site, all checked on 9 September 2026. Where a finding rests on a law firm's note rather than the judgment, the sources chapter says so. This is not legal advice and a solicitor must review it before any commercial approach.

← Metrics and unit economics Sources →