UK Graphic Design Laws That Can Derail Your Branding (Fonts, Images, Colour & Websites)
Source: Adobe Stock
A strong visual can sell trust in seconds. That’s also why the legal risk sits inside the design work, not outside it. Fonts, images, colour systems, layouts, and websites all touch legal territory in the UK, mainly through UK copyright law, trade marks, consumer protection rules, privacy rules, and accessibility duties.
This guide is written to be genuinely useful for designers and business owners. It focuses on practical checks you can keep in your workflow, and it treats graphic design laws and regulations as a design constraint that protects brand equity.
Note: this is information, not legal advice. Complex scenarios need a qualified solicitor.
The Legal Map Behind Everyday Design Work
The fastest way to make sense of graphic design laws is to think in “assets”. Every project has assets (type, imagery, icons, illustrations, UI components, copy, code snippets, templates). Each asset has rights attached. If you can answer “what is it, who owns it, what licence covers it, and where is it used?”, you’ve already lowered the risk significantly.
Copyright is the core layer for most creative outputs. Copyright protects original works and gives the rightsholder control over restricted acts such as copying and issuing copies to the public (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.16). If a design asset is copied without permission (even partially, even after “minor edits”), that can still raise issues because copying is explicitly one of the restricted acts (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.17).
A second layer is trade mark law, which matters when design choices create brand confusion. A registered trade mark can include signs such as words, logos, shapes, and colours (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.1). If a new brand identity looks close enough to cause confusion in the market, infringement and disputes become a real possibility (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.10). A practical “don’t wing it” reference point for brand confusion and goodwill in the UK is the classic passing off framework discussed in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (1990) and the leading text by Wadlow (2016).
Then you have website-specific law: privacy rules (cookies and tracking), consumer protection rules (misleading design patterns), and accessibility duties.
Copyright Ownership Is Often Misunderstood
A lot of founders assume “we paid for it, so we own it.” UK copyright law doesn’t work like that.
The starting point is first ownership. In general, the author is the first owner of copyright, and works created by employees in the course of employment typically belong to the employer (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.11). Commissioning a freelancer does not automatically transfer ownership.
Ownership changes through assignment, and the law is strict about how that is done: an assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.90). That one rule explains a lot of late-stage panic in rebrands, book covers, packaging refreshes, and website rebuilds.
A practical takeaway for brand guidelines is simple: if your brand system is meant to be reusable, scalable, and safe across campaigns, the paperwork needs to match the intent. Keep the contract language aligned with how the asset will be used: logo use, social templates, web assets, packaging, adverts, and future derivatives.
If you want an agency to quietly handle the admin side of this (asset registers, licence checks, usage scope, sign-offs) while you focus on growth, that’s the kind of “invisible work” Gaiaa Designs folds into professional delivery. One clean process early saves a lot of uncomfortable emails later.
Fonts And Typefaces Are A Licensing Problem First
Fonts are one of the easiest ways to end up in messy territory because the workflow encourages casual behaviour: download a file, install it, design with it, ship the files, move on. In practice, most fonts are licensed with detailed usage permissions, and the licence scope matters.
It also helps to understand the legal categories sitting underneath. Computer programs are treated as literary works under UK copyright law (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.3). Many font files function as software, and font licences often separate “desktop” use from web embedding, app use, ePub distribution, or client redistribution.
Typefaces have their own special nuance too. UK law contains a specific provision about the use of typefaces in the ordinary course of printing (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.54). Designers sometimes hear this second-hand and assume it means “fonts are basically free.” It does not. The practical reality remains: the licence terms and the usage context still matter, especially for web use, app use, and file handover.
A solid “font-safe” workflow looks like this:
Keep a font list per project, with source and licence type.
Confirm whether the licence covers commercial use, web embedding, and client transfer.
Avoid sending editable working files to clients if the licence forbids redistribution.
Keep invoices, licence PDFs, and screenshots in one folder tied to the project.
That is also one of the most common places where graphic design laws and regulations intersect with day-to-day work without anyone realising until something goes wrong.
Images, Icons, Mockups, And “Just One Stock Photo”
Imagery triggers graphic design copyright laws quickly because copying is the heart of infringement. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, restricted acts include copying and issuing copies to the public (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss.16–17).
Stock licensing reduces risk when done properly, but it comes with rules. Many stock licences limit use cases (editorial-only restrictions, product resale restrictions, template resale restrictions, limits on print runs, limits on logo use). The legal risk often comes from “scope creep”: the asset starts as a blog banner and ends up on packaging, ads, and a hero section across multiple product pages.
Icons can be a sleeper issue too. “Free icon packs” are frequently redistributed, reuploaded, and stripped of licensing details. Treat them the same way you treat type: source, licence, proof.
A good test question for every image-based element is: if you had to prove your rights tomorrow, could you do it in five minutes? If the answer is no, tighten the system.
Source: Adobe Stock
Moral Rights And Credit Are Part Of The Deal
Designers and illustrators in the UK can have moral rights, including the right to be identified as the author in certain circumstances (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.77).
That matters in practical branding work because disputes sometimes aren’t only about money. They can be about attribution, treatment of the work, and how derivatives are handled. Contracts often address moral rights directly, including consent or waivers where appropriate. The key point for founders is straightforward: treat moral rights as a real part of the legal layer, not a footnote.
Colour And Branding Can Trigger Trade Mark Risk
Colour is emotional, strategic, and memorable. It can also be legally relevant. UK trade mark law allows a trade mark to include colours when they operate as distinctive signs in context (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.1).
This does not mean “you can’t use red” or “someone owns purple.” It means colour can be protected in particular contexts where it functions as a distinctive brand indicator. The risk in real life comes from near-market imitation: a palette, layout style, typography feel, and naming choice working together to create confusion.
There’s also common law “passing off” to be aware of in branding work. If branding creates a misrepresentation likely to confuse the public and damage goodwill, disputes can follow (Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc, 1990; Wadlow, 2016). That is one reason serious brand development includes an early check for “too-close” look and feel in the same market category.
Website Design Mistakes That Are Hurting A Business
Some website design mistakes that are hurting a business are aesthetic. Others are legal and commercial risk dressed up as UX.
Cookie Banners And Tracking Aren’t Just A Tech Problem
Cookies and similar technologies are regulated in the UK through PECR (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, reg. 6). The UK GDPR also recognises that online identifiers (such as IP addresses and cookie identifiers) can be associated with individuals (UK GDPR, Recital 30).
The practical risk appears when third-party embeds (analytics, ads, chat widgets, video players) store or access information on a user’s device before valid consent. The regulator’s detailed guidance on cookie/storage compliance sets out consent expectations and what “strictly necessary” does and doesn’t cover (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2025).
If your site is running marketing tags, you need a consent mechanism that is clear and functional, not decorative.
Dark Patterns And Misleading Design Can Breach Consumer Rules
Design can become a consumer protection issue when it nudges users through misleading or manipulative flows. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibit misleading actions (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, reg. 5).
Regulators have also published research on online choice architecture and harmful design practices that distort consumer choice (Competition and Markets Authority, 2022; Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, 2023). Academic research on “dark patterns” shows how common deceptive interface patterns can be at scale and why they matter for consumer autonomy (Mathur et al., 2019).
Practical design takeaways for founders and designers:
Put key terms where users expect them, with plain language.
Avoid forced consent patterns and confusing toggles.
Make “decline” as usable as “accept” in consent flows.
Treat trust signals as part of compliance, not “nice to have”.
That is one of the clearest intersections between conversion design and graphic design laws and regulations.
Accessibility: The Legal Duty That Affects Design Decisions
Accessibility is not only a public-sector discussion. The Equality Act 2010 includes a duty to make reasonable adjustments (Equality Act 2010, s.20) and protections around the provision of services (Equality Act 2010, s.29).
WCAG is not “UK law” on its own, but it is a recognised standard and a common benchmark. WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation web standard (W3C, 2023). It covers issues designers touch daily: contrast, focus visibility, keyboard access, form errors, and consistent navigation.
If you want one high-impact design habit here: run contrast checks early and treat focus states as part of the visual system, not an afterthought. Those choices reduce user drop-off and reduce risk exposure.
Save-For-Later Resource
Want a practical “keep it all in one place” asset for your next client project or rebrand? The UK Design Law Compliance Pack helps you document what you used, what licences cover it, where it appears, and what got signed off. You can either download the PDF version by clicking below or simply copy paste the ready to use template.
Use the tables below to document assets, licences, usage scope, and sign-off. If you prefer copy/paste, open the plain-text version and drop it into your own doc.
Copy/Paste Template
| Field | Fill In |
|---|---|
| Client / Brand | |
| Project | |
| Date Started | |
| Designer / Studio | |
| Primary Channels | Web / Print / Social / Packaging / App / Other |
| Notes |
| Asset | Type | Source | Licence / Rights Basis | Scope + Limits | Proof (Y/N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Check / Target | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fonts | Licences cover embedding/web use; hosting method recorded where relevant. | |
| Images & Icons | Licence scope covers intended channels; attribution captured where required. | |
| Trade Marks | Conflicts/look-alike risk reviewed in market category. | |
| Accessibility | WCAG 2.2 AA baseline: contrast, focus visibility, keyboard access, forms. | |
| Cookies / Tracking | Tags audited; consent documented; privacy notice checked. | |
| Claims & UX | No misleading layouts; key claims supportable; clear pricing/terms. | |
| Embeds | Third-party embeds reviewed and recorded. |
| Section | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverables Provided | Files + versions (PDF, SVG, AI, INDD, EPUB, etc.) | |
| Usage Rights Summary | Where assets can be used + any exclusions. | |
| Attribution / Moral Rights | Credit agreed? waivers/consents documented? | |
| Evidence Pack Location | Folder link / storage path to licences + proof. |
| Field | Fill In |
|---|---|
| Name | |
| Date |
A Practical UK Design Law Quick-Check Table
Use this table as a fast internal review during projects. It turns “legal risk” into concrete checks you can actually complete.
| Area | What Can Go Wrong | Relevant UK Framework | Practical Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fonts & Typography | Unlicensed font use, restricted redistribution, web embedding outside licence scope | (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.3; Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.54) | Save licences + invoices; confirm desktop/web/app/ePub rights; record where fonts are used |
| Images & Illustrations | Copying without permission; misuse of stock licences | (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss.16–17) | Store licence proof; track where assets appear; check stock limitations before reusing across campaigns |
| Ownership & Handover | Client assumes ownership; missing assignment | (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.11; Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.90) | Put assignment/licence scope in contract; maintain a clear sign-off page for deliverables |
| Brand Look & Colour | Confusingly similar branding; disputes | (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.1; Trade Marks Act 1994, s.10; Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc, 1990; Wadlow, 2016) | Early “too-close” review within the market; document decisions inside brand guidelines |
| Website Consent & Tracking | Non-compliant cookie practices; hidden tracking | (Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, reg. 6; UK GDPR, Recital 30; Information Commissioner’s Office, 2025) | Audit tags; implement clear consent; keep a record of tools and purposes |
| Consumer UX & Claims | Misleading UI, manipulative consent, unclear pricing or terms | (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, reg. 5; Competition and Markets Authority, 2022; Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, 2023; Mathur et al., 2019) | Make choices clear; avoid confusing toggles; put material info where users see it |
| Accessibility | Users blocked from accessing services; complaint risk | (Equality Act 2010, ss.20 and 29; W3C, 2023) | Contrast checks, keyboard tests, focus visibility, form error clarity |
The Workflow Upgrade That Makes This Easy
Knowing the law is useful. Building a repeatable workflow is the part that saves time. A simple way to operationalise graphic design copyright laws and wider compliance is to keep a project “rights folder” from day one. Put the contract, licences, invoices, and the final asset list in it. Make handover rules consistent. Use brand guidelines as a governance document, not only a visual one. Then treat web design as a compliance surface: cookies, accessibility, and honest UX patterns all live there.
If you want this built into a calm, repeatable system across your brand assets and website updates, Gaiaa Designs can handle the design work with the rights-and-compliance checks folded into the process, so your output stays consistent and defensible.
References
Competition and Markets Authority (2022) Online choice architecture: how digital design can harm competition and consumers (discussion paper). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63456a46d3bf7f61852400c5/Online_choice_architecture_-_how_digital_design_can_harm_competition_and_consumers.pdf (Accessed: 8 December 2025).
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277), reg. 5. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/5 (Accessed: 6 December 2025).
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss.3, 11, 16, 17, 54, 77 and 90. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents (Accessed: 1 December 2025).
Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (2023) Harmful design in digital markets: ICO-CMA joint position paper. Available at: https://www.drcf.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/95112/Harmful-design-in-digital-markets.pdf (Accessed: 8 December 2025).
Equality Act 2010, ss.20 and 29. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (Accessed: 8 December 2025).
Information Commissioner’s Office (2025) Guidance on the use of cookies and similar technologies (v1.0). Available at: https://ico.org.uk/media2/kz0doybw/guidance-on-the-use-of-cookies-and-similar-technologies-1-0.pdf (Accessed: 7 December 2025).
Mathur, A. et al. (2019) ‘Dark patterns at scale: findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites’, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 81. Available at: https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2021/cmsc614/papers/dark-patterns.pdf (Accessed: 8 December 2025).
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2426), reg. 6. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/regulation/6 (Accessed: 5 December 2025).
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491; [1990] UKHL 7.
Trade Marks Act 1994, ss.1 and 10. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/contents (Accessed: 1 December 2025).
UK GDPR (United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation) Recital 30. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/introduction (Accessed: 5 December 2025).
W3C (2023) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 (W3C Recommendation). Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ (Accessed: 31 December 2025).
Wadlow, C. (2016) The law of passing-off: unfair competition by misrepresentation. 5th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
