Model Likeness Rights in AI Campaigns: What Brands and Agencies Need in Writing
If an AI campaign shows a real, recognisable model, you need that model's consent, and in practice you need it in writing, tied to a defined purpose, duration, territory and set of media. A booking for a photo shoot does not cover a digital replica. Training a system on a model's face, generating new images from it and using those images in paid advertising are separate uses, and the contract has to name each one. In the EU, data protection law adds its own consent rules; in the US, state publicity laws apply, and New York has a rule written for digital replicas of models.
Below: what changes when a campaign moves from photographing a person to generating one, and which clauses to expect before production starts. This is a practical overview, not legal advice; contracts for a specific campaign belong with a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.
Why a shoot contract does not cover a digital replica
A traditional usage agreement licenses a fixed set of photographs: these images, these channels, this period. With a digital replica, the model licenses the ability to produce pictures that do not exist yet, in poses, outfits and settings nobody has seen. That has practical consequences:
The scope is open by default. If the contract does not limit what may be generated, the model cannot judge what they agree to, and the consent is weak.
Training is its own act. Preparing a system to reproduce a face happens before any campaign image exists, so it needs its own clause.
Reuse is easy. Extending a campaign to a new season or market costs little once a replica exists. Without a clause on follow-on use, the brand either runs images it has no clear right to or renegotiates under pressure.
The EU view: personal data and image rights
Data protection
A photograph of an identifiable person is personal data under the GDPR, and material captured to reproduce a face can go further. The regulation defines biometric data as personal data "resulting from specific technical processing" of physical characteristics that "allow or confirm the unique identification" of a person (Art. 4(14) GDPR). Processing biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying someone is prohibited under Art. 9(1) unless an exception applies, and explicit consent is one of them. Whether a replica workflow falls under Art. 9 depends on how it is built and used; that is a question for a data protection lawyer.
Two GDPR points apply to every campaign:
Consent has to be "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous" (Art. 4(11)). A general clause buried in a model release is a poor fit for that standard.
The model can withdraw consent at any time (Art. 7(3)). Earlier processing stays lawful, but your plan needs an answer for that case: which assets are delivered and licensed, and what happens to the replica and training material.
Germany: the right to one's own image
German law adds an older rule, dating from 1907. Under § 22 KUG, portraits may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person shown. The same provision says consent is presumed, in case of doubt, if the person was paid for being portrayed. For AI work, do not lean on that presumption: a shoot-day fee says little about consent to generated images of situations the model never posed for. Written terms remove the doubt.
Other EU countries have their own image and personality rights, so a pan-European campaign needs consent that works in each market.
The US view: right of publicity, state by state
There is no federal right of publicity. Each state sets its own rules, and the two states most relevant to fashion advertising have explicit statutes.
California. Civil Code § 3344 makes anyone who knowingly uses another person's name, voice, photograph or likeness for advertising without prior consent liable for damages, with a statutory minimum of $750 or actual damages, whichever is greater.
New York. Civil Rights Law § 50 requires the written consent of a living person before their name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice is used for advertising or trade.
New York Fashion Workers Act. The act (S9832), signed in December 2024 and in force since June 2025, deals directly with digital replicas of models. It defines a digital replica as a computer-generated or AI-enhanced representation that substantially replicates or replaces a model's appearance or performance. Model management companies must obtain written consent for creating or using a replica, separate from the representation agreement, and covering scope, purpose, rate of pay and duration. Clients must obtain clear and conspicuous prior written consent with the same details. The act lists retailers, manufacturers, designers and advertising agencies among those clients.
For a brand or agency booking a model in New York, that last point matters most: the client has its own obligation, independent of the model agency.
What the consent document should cover
The legal systems differ, but the practical requirements converge. The consent should state, in plain language:
1. What is captured and why. Which reference material is taken to build the replica.
2. What may be generated. Campaign, product categories, scene types, and exclusions such as nudity, political contexts or products the model refuses.
3. Where and how long. Territories, media and channels, and a clear end date for use of both the outputs and the replica itself.
4. Payment. A fee for creating the replica and a separate rate for use, with a rule for extensions and follow-on campaigns.
5. Approval rights. Whether the model or their agency sees generated images before release.
6. Withdrawal and deletion. What happens to training material and the replica at contract end or withdrawal, and who confirms deletion.
7. Disclosure. Whether and how images will be labelled as AI-generated, with room for labels the law may require later.
Vague terms fail the GDPR standard of specific and informed consent and invite disputes under publicity law. Specific terms hold up under every regime above.
Who carries which responsibility
The model agency negotiates the terms and, under laws like the New York act, has its own consent duties.
The brand holds the usage rights and decides where images run. If an image appears outside the agreed scope, the brand is the one using it.
The creative agency often drafts the brief and books talent, so it checks that the brief stays inside the consent.
The production studio builds and stores the replica, documents which consent each asset rests on and deletes the replica on request.
How studios and agencies divide the rest of the work is covered in How AI Production Studios Work With Ad Agencies.
Where projects go wrong
Most problems come from treating the replica like an ordinary shoot:
The booking confirmation mentions "AI use" in one line, with no scope.
The replica has no end date, only the campaign images do.
A campaign moves to a new market and nobody checks the territory clause.
The brief asks for a scene type the model excluded.
After contract end, nobody knows where the training material is stored.
Licensing terms also drive cost, as discussed in our article on AI campaign pricing. For the wider legal picture, including disclosure, see Legal Framework for AI Campaigns.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a model's consent to use their face in AI-generated campaign images?
Yes, if the model is recognisable: under image and data protection law in the EU, and under right of publicity laws in states such as California and New York. For AI work, get it in writing and specify what may be generated, where and for how long.
Does a standard model release cover AI-generated images?
Usually not. A standard release licenses photographs taken on the day. A replica produces new images the model never posed for, so the contract should name the replica, the training step and the use of generated output separately.
What does the New York Fashion Workers Act require for digital replicas?
Written consent for creating or using a model's digital replica, covering scope, purpose, rate of pay and duration. Model management companies and clients, including retailers, designers and advertising agencies, each have to obtain it. The act has applied since June 2025.
Can a model withdraw consent after the replica has been built?
Under the GDPR, yes, at any time, though processing before the withdrawal stays lawful. The contract should say what then happens to delivered assets, the replica and the training material. In the US, the answer depends on the agreement and the state.
Is a digital replica of a model biometric data under the GDPR?
It can be, if the data comes from specific technical processing of physical features and allows unique identification of the person. Whether a particular workflow meets that definition depends on how it is built and used, so get a data protection assessment before production.
Who is liable if a generated image goes beyond the agreed use?
That depends on the contracts and the jurisdiction, but the party that publishes the image, usually the brand, is the first one exposed to a claim. Agencies and studios can carry their own share through their contracts and through laws such as the New York act that give clients and agencies separate duties. A record of which consent covers which asset protects everyone in the chain.
About The Bridges AI
The Bridges AI is an independent AI and hybrid campaign production company working in strategic partnership with Most Wanted Models®, the German model agency founded in 1997. Combining nearly 30 years of fashion, talent and campaign expertise with generative AI, The Bridges AI produces high-end imagery and video for fashion, beauty and premium brands worldwide.
Written by the editorial team of The Bridges AI. Last updated October 2026.
Comments