Documenting your creative process: sketches, registration, and metadata to defend your authorship

Verified on 3 November 2026. This guide provides general information and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.

Documenting the authorship of a work does not create copyright, but it enables the assembly of evidence regarding who created it, when, and through what process. Intellectual property arises upon the creation of the work: it does not depend on paying a fee, publishing on a platform, or adding the © symbol. The problem arises when another person disputes the authorship, the date, the contribution of each collaborator, or the scope of a licence. At that point, it is advisable to have coherent, dated evidence that has been preserved since the work process began.

Documentation does not consist of accumulating unsorted screenshots. It consists of being able to reconstruct how the work emerged, what decisions were made, what materials were used, who participated, and what rights were agreed upon.

What Spanish law recognises

Article 1 of the consolidated text of the Intellectual Property Law establishes that intellectual property belongs to the author by the mere fact of creation. Article 5 considers the author to be the natural person who creates a literary, artistic, or scientific work. Article 6 presumes the author, unless proven otherwise, to be the person who appears as such in the work through their name, signature, or identifying sign.

Three simple measures follow from these rules:

• identify the work with your name or a stable pseudonym;
• retain the original and its history, not merely the published copy;
• record collaborations, commissions, and assignments in writing.

The © symbol may accompany the name of the copyright holder and the year of first publication, but it does not create the right nor does it replace evidence of the process.

What the file must demonstrate to document the authorship of a work

A useful file answers five questions:

1. What was created. The final work and its relevant versions.
2. Who was involved. Authorship, co-authorship, commissions, and technical tasks.
3. When it occurred. Dates of sketches, decisions, deliveries, and publication.
4. How it was made. Technique, software, references, materials, and tools.
5. With what permissions. Resource licences, consents, and contracts.

No isolated piece of evidence guarantees the outcome of a dispute. The value lies in the concordance between independent items: a dated notebook, working files, delivery emails, invoices, version history, metadata, an identified publication, and, where appropriate, a registration entry.

A filing system that can be maintained

For each project, create a main folder with a stable structure:

2026-11_titulo-proyecto/
├── 01_encargo-y-acuerdos/
├── 02_referencias-y-licencias/
├── 03_bocetos/
├── 04_archivos-de-trabajo/
├── 05_exportaciones/
├── 06_publicacion-y-entrega/
├── 07_registro-y-certificados/
└── ficha-proceso.md

Use names that order versions without relying on "final", "final2", or "definitive":

2026-11-03_cartel_v01_boceto.kra
2026-11-05_cartel_v04_color.kra
2026-11-07_cartel_v07_entrega.tif

Retain the native format with layers and, in addition, an open or widely compatible export where reasonable. The guide on editable files elaborates on how to prevent a change in software from rendering the file illegible.

Maintain at least two copies on different media and a third outside the usual place of work. Cloud synchronisation does not replace a backup if a deletion or corruption is replicated across all devices.

What to save during the process

• Sketches, thumbnails, composition tests, and character studies.
• Photographs or scans of notebooks, with a reference to the physical original.
• Files with layers and significant intermediate versions.
• Brushes, typefaces, textures, models, or templates essential for reconstructing the work, along with their licences.
• Visual references, URLs, author, date of consultation, and conditions of use. The guide for using visual references explains how to distinguish between inspiration, documentation, and copying.
• Emails or messages regarding commissions, requested changes, approvals, and deliveries.
• Invoices and receipts linked to the project.
• Assignment contracts, licences, consents, and image authorisations where applicable.
• Distribution of tasks and percentages in the case of co-authorship. For collective projects, consult Creating a comic or fanzine with multiple people.
• The first publication or public communication, with URL, date, and contextual screenshot.
• Record of AI tools, if used, and a specific explanation of their function.

A screenshot can provide context, but it is easily edited and often loses information. Whenever possible, also retain the original file, the URL, the complete message, or the history export.

Process record

The record must be brief to ensure it is actually completed, and sufficiently precise to reconstruct the project.

# Ficha de proceso

- Título:
- Identificador interno:
- Autoría y seudónimo:
- Fecha de inicio:
- Fecha de terminación:
- Técnica y soporte:
- Programas y versiones relevantes:
- Dispositivo o equipo principal:
- Referencias y licencias:
- Recursos de terceros incorporados:
- Colaboradores y función:
- Acuerdos o contratos vinculados:
- Herramientas de IA y función concreta:
- Decisiones humanas principales:
- Archivos y bocetos conservados:
- Ubicación de las copias de seguridad:
- Primera publicación o entrega:
- Inscripción registral, si existe:
- Observaciones:

Do not include passwords, private keys, or unnecessary personal data. If the file contains identity documents, contracts, or other people's data, separate the public copy from the private folder and restrict access.

Works assisted by artificial intelligence

The report Copyright and artificial intelligence-generated outputs, published by the European Parliamentary Research Service in October 2026, distinguishes between productions purely generated by AI, with minimal or non-existent human creativity, and works created with the assistance of AI applications. According to the report, the latter may be protected when substantial human creativity exists, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The report is not legislation and does not establish a percentage, a minimum number of instructions, or an automatic test. Repeating prompts or selecting one output from many does not, in itself, guarantee protection. The relevant factor is the ability to identify specific creative human decisions and their expression in the result. The guide on authorship of works created with AI under Spanish law elaborates on this framework.

If you use AI, document the following:

• tool, model, and version, if available;
• date of use and the account or mode utilised;
• precise function: ideation, translation, expansion, background, cleanup, colour, text, or composition;
• input materials and the rights to use them;
• relevant instructions and parameters, without the need to retain confidential data;
• selected and discarded outputs;
• subsequent transformations;
• parts drawn, written, composed, or edited by you;
• human review and decisions that modified the result;
• terms of service in effect on the date of use.

To preserve the file of a work created with AI in the long term, the guide on archiving and preserving a work created with artificial intelligence addresses how to archive and maintain it.

Documentation must describe what occurred, not retrospectively fabricate an appearance of intervention. Altering dates or reconstructing a false history may weaken the entire file.

The Intellectual Property Registry

The Intellectual Property Registry is public and official. It allows for the registration of rights relating to protected works, performances, and productions, as well as specific acts and contracts affecting those rights. Registration is voluntary and does not create authorship.

Article 26.1 of the Regulations of the Intellectual Property Registry, approved by Royal Decree 611/2023, presumes, unless proven otherwise, that registered rights exist and belong to their holder. The Ministry of Culture describes registration as qualified evidence: it may shift the burden of proving inaccuracy to the party challenging it. It does not render protectable that which does not meet legal requirements, nor does it prevent another person from providing evidence to the contrary.

How to apply

The application may be submitted in person or electronically. Electronic processing includes identification, completion, payment, signing, submission, and the provision of the electronic copy that identifies the work. The competent registry depends on the territory and the type of application.

In the Central Registry, the fees for 2026 are:

• processing of the registration application: €14.97 in person and €8.26 electronically;
• positive or negative certificate: €16.66 in person and €9.11 electronically;
• simple information note: €12.76 in person and €5.21 electronically;
• certified copy: €26.16 in person and €18.61 electronically.

Territorial registries set their own fees. In Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Catalonia, the Valencian Community, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Madrid, Murcia, and the Basque Country, there is a territorial registry; before paying, it is advisable to verify the procedure applicable to the place of residence and the application.

When it may be worthwhile

• before sending an unpublished work to several companies or potential licensees;
• before significant commercial exploitation;
• in a collective work with defined percentages and rights;
• when there will be subsequent adaptations, translations, or licences;
• when a conflict or specific risk already exists, with professional advice on the evidentiary strategy.

Registering every sketch is generally not a proportionate strategy. It may be more useful to maintain a solid ordinary archive and reserve registration for finished works, collections, or significant milestones.

IPTC: authorship, rights, and digital origin

IPTC Photo Metadata is a professional standard for describing images. Its usual fields include:

• Creator: the person who created the image;
• Creator’s Job Title: professional role;
• Credit Line: requested credit format;
• Copyright Notice: copyright notice;
• Copyright Owner: the rights holder;
• Licensor: the person or organisation granting the licence;
• Usage Terms: terms of use;
• Web Statement of Rights: address for a statement of rights;
• Digital Source Type: digital origin of the content.

The Digital Source Type vocabulary distinguishes, among others, digital capture of reality, computational capture, media generated by trained algorithms, and compositions incorporating generative content. This field declares a provenance; it does not, in itself, prove who the author is or validate ownership.

IPTC recommends preserving embedded metadata. Before publishing, verify what data the file contains: metadata may reveal location, device, internal names, or personal information. Retain a complete master original and create a publication copy with only the appropriate fields.

C2PA and Content Credentials

C2PA is an open technical specification for recording the provenance and history of a file through signed manifests. Content Credentials may incorporate information regarding creation, editing, ingredients, actions, and the use of AI. Specification 2.4 supports embedded or externally stored manifests and mechanisms to verify whether the signed information has been altered.

These do not constitute a certification of absolute veracity. A credential may attest that an entity signed specific assertions and that the file has not changed in a certain manner since that time; it does not guarantee that every assertion is true, nor does it determine legal authorship.

It is also inadvisable to rely on a platform to preserve the manifest. Recovered official documentation does not allow for a general assertion that all social networks maintain or remove IPTC, EXIF, or C2PA. Always save the original and verify a test download on every service you use.

Publishing without losing evidence

Before uploading a work:

1. retain the master file and calculate, if you wish, a digital fingerprint using a reliable tool;
2. export a specific copy for publication;
3. remove from that copy any personal data that should not be disseminated;
4. add appropriate credit, copyright notice, and terms of use;
5. save the URL and a capture showing the account, date, and context;
6. subsequently download the published image and verify which metadata remain;
7. archive the platform's terms applicable on that date if the publication has commercial importance.

A digital fingerprint allows one to verify that a file has not changed, but it does not by itself demonstrate who created it or when it existed if it is not linked to a reliable temporal or documentary source. If someone later copies your work, the guide My work has been copied: how to document it and what avenues exist explains how to gather and present such evidence.

Errors that weaken a file

• retaining only a compressed image from a social network;
• always overwriting the same file;
• saving sketches without a clear relationship to the final work;
• mixing references with licensed resources without noting their origin;
• attributing a task to "AI" without identifying which tool did what;
• relying on system dates that can be modified;
• using private services as if they were official registries;
• confusing a licence to use with an assignment of authorship;
• registering a collective work without an agreement on contributions and percentages;
• publishing contracts, identity documents, or complete histories to attempt to demonstrate authorship.

Minimum routine to begin

Upon completing a work:

• sign or identify the final version;
• save the native file and an export;
• retain at least two significant intermediate versions;
• complete the process record;
• note references, licences, and collaborations;
• create a backup copy outside the primary device;
• record where and when it was first published;
• evaluate registration if the work will have sufficient exploitation, circulation, or risk to justify it.

For projects exhibited in institutions, this documentation also facilitates the preparation of accessible versions, audio, captions, and derivative materials. The guide to cognitive accessibility in museums and cultural centres explains which deliverables may be required from 2027.

Sources

• Consolidated Text of the Intellectual Property Law, articles 1, 5, and 6.
• European Parliamentary Research Service, Copyright and artificial intelligence-generated outputs, published in October 2026.
• Ministry of Culture, frequently asked questions regarding the Intellectual Property Registry.
• Ministry of Culture, Intellectual Property Registry fees in 2026.
• Royal Decree 611/2023, Regulations of the Intellectual Property Registry, article 26.1.
• IPTC Photo Metadata User Guide, November 2025 revision.
• IPTC, Digital Source Type vocabulary.
• C2PA, technical specification 2.4.
• C2PA, Content Credentials Deployment Guidance 1.0, 8 July 2026.