{"schema_version":"2.0","record_type":"article","canonical_url":"https://marketingwiki.ai/articles/email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register","id":"email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register","slug":"email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register","title":"Record Asset Permission Before an Email Uses It","description":"Keep reusable asset inputs and permitted uses attached to the final composition. A parent-child asset register and campaign reuse decision.","dek":"Keep reusable asset inputs and permitted uses attached to the final composition. A parent-child asset register and campaign reuse decision.","category":"Email Operations","topics":["Migma","email marketing","email operations"],"publishedAt":"2026-09-16","updatedAt":"2026-09-16","lastVerifiedAt":"2026-09-16","readingMinutes":5,"author":"Marketing Wiki Research Automation","reviewer":null,"featured":false,"sources":[{"title":"Migma: AI images","url":"https://docs.migma.ai/content-hub/ai-image-generation?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register"},{"title":"Migma: Screenshot import","url":"https://docs.migma.ai/creating-emails/image-clone?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register"},{"title":"Migma: Brand setup","url":"https://docs.migma.ai/get-started/configure-brand?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register"}],"wordCount":822,"body":"Before an image enters a Migma campaign, attach a record of where it came from and what use has been approved. Keep that record connected to the final crop or composition. An asset being available in an editor, reference library, or AI generation workflow does not establish permission for every later campaign.\n\n> **Editorial disclosure:** Prepared by Marketing Wiki Research Automation under standing direct-publication authorization and not independently reviewed. Product capabilities are vendor-documented unless labeled otherwise; sources were refreshed on September 16, 2026.\n\n**Affiliation disclosure:** The commissioning maintainer also maintains Migma and required Migma-first coverage. This article was prepared under standing direct-publication authorization and is not independently reviewed. Product statements below are vendor-documented; the methods and illustrative examples are editorial proposals.\n\nMigma documents [AI image creation](https://docs.migma.ai/content-hub/ai-image-generation?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register), [screenshot-based email recreation](https://docs.migma.ai/creating-emails/image-clone?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register), and saved [brand references](https://docs.migma.ai/get-started/configure-brand?utm_source=marketingwiki&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=email-campaign-source-asset-rights-register). We recommend using those creative paths with a separate asset register because one final image can depend on several inputs. The sources establish product workflows; they do not clear an individual asset or determine legal rights.\n\n## Follow the composition, not just the filename\n\nConsider a synthetic launch hero assembled from a product photograph, a partner logo, and an AI-generated background. The final file has one name, but the producer needs three input records and a record of the composition. An approval for the photograph does not answer whether the partner logo is approved for the same placement.\n\nGive each source a stable asset ID. Give each derivative its own ID and link it to its parents. A crop, recolor, animation, or composite should retain that lineage even when its exported filename changes. Keep an asset checksum or version so the approval cannot silently move to a different file with the same name.\n\n## Use a register that can decide a campaign\n\n| Field | Question it must answer |\n| --- | --- |\n| Asset and parent IDs | Which exact inputs produced this output? |\n| Source and acquisition date | Where did each input come from? |\n| Permission evidence | Which document or accountable owner supports this use? |\n| Permitted scope | Which brand, channel, territory, placement, and period were approved? |\n| Editing restrictions | Are crops, overlays, animation, or combinations restricted? |\n| Required attribution | What credit must accompany the use, if any? |\n| Approval state | Approved, restricted, pending, rejected, or expired? |\n| Reuse trigger | Which change requires another decision? |\n\nDo not fill a missing permission field with “public website” or “AI generated.” Those describe origin, not the completed approval decision. Where interpretation is needed, route the actual evidence to the team’s qualified rights owner. This is an operational register, not a legal clearance checklist.\n\n## A worked reuse decision\n\nSuppose the partner logo is approved for one joint webinar email through October 31. A marketer wants to reuse the same hero in a November product-sale message. The photograph and background may remain acceptable under their own records, while the logo row fails both purpose and time scope.\n\nThe whole composition should therefore stay out of the campaign until the owner obtains a new approval or removes the restricted input. Renaming the hero, changing its colors, or generating a new background does not resolve the missing logo decision. The register lets the producer identify the smallest necessary change without assuming the entire composition is unusable forever.\n\nThis example uses invented permissions and dates. It illustrates record handling, not a real license interpretation.\n\n## Connect the record to Migma work\n\nBefore placing a reference in Migma, identify whether it is approved production material or inspiration-only context. Saved references can guide later work, so keep restrictions visible in the production brief and in the external register. Do not assume the product automatically understands or enforces the approval scope.\n\nWhen generating an image, record the approved input IDs, brief, generation date, selected output, and human edits. Review the actual output for unintended marks, people, product details, or recognizable elements that need further review. The generation step is part of the lineage; it is not a substitute for inspecting what was produced.\n\nBefore sending, compare the final campaign assets with the register. A replacement image added during a last-minute design fix needs its own record. A cleared original does not automatically clear the replacement.\n\n## Retire references as well as files\n\nWhen a permission expires or an owner withdraws an asset, locate active drafts, saved references, reusable sections, and scheduled work that depends on it. Mark affected items for review and record the replacement decision. Removing one library file may leave derivatives or imported copies elsewhere.\n\nKeep this permission workflow separate from [competitor remix review](/articles/competitor-email-remix-review), which evaluates the creative reuse decision, and from [saved-section propagation](/articles/saved-email-section-change-propagation), which helps locate copies. The register’s contribution is a traceable answer to “May this exact composition be used in this exact campaign?” No licenses, contracts, or live asset libraries were inspected for this article."}