A likeness release that covers AI generation
A standard model release authorises using footage you shot, not generating new footage of someone. The clauses a release needs for synthetic replication.
A standard model release grants you the right to use images and recordings that were made. It says nothing about making new ones.
That is the whole gap. The release in most production folders was drafted for a world where the only footage of a person was footage someone shot of them. It authorises reproduction, distribution and display of captured material. Generating new material — a synthetic performance the person never gave, in a scene they were never in, saying words they never said — is not a use of the captured material. It is a different act, and the old paragraph does not reach it.
This is general information, not legal advice. Have counsel draft the actual document. What follows is what to make sure it contains.
Why the old wording does not stretch
The usual argument is that a broad grant covers it: "the right to use my image in any and all media now known or hereafter devised." Two problems.
First, that sentence describes use of an image, not creation of new imagery. A drafter reading it in 2015 was thinking about future distribution channels, not future generative capability.
Second, and more decisively, California's AB 2602 took effect on 1 January 2025 and makes digital-replica provisions in performer contracts unenforceable unless the intended use is specifically described and the performer was professionally represented. A boilerplate catch-all is the exact shape that statute voids. The breadth that used to be the clause's strength is now the reason it fails.
The clauses a release needs now
Work through these in order. Items 1 through 4 are the load-bearing ones.
1. A specific description of the replica
Not "digital replica rights." Name what is being built:
- Which attributes. Face, voice, full-body performance, or a named combination. Say it explicitly. A face grant is not a voice grant, and voice has its own statutory regime — Tennessee's ELVIS Act made voice a protected personal right from 1 July 2024 and reaches tool providers, not just publishers.
- Built from what. The specific session, shoot or recordings the replica will be derived from.
- What kind of artefact. A one-off generated clip, a reusable avatar, or a trained model or voice embedding that persists after the project. These are three very different grants and they are routinely collapsed into one sentence.
Before and after, illustrative rather than drafting language:
| Old | Adequate |
|---|---|
| "Company may create digital replicas of Subject for use in any and all media." | "Company may create a synthetic voice model of Subject from the 14 March session recordings, and generate narration from it for the Acme onboarding series only." |
The test: reading the paragraph alone, could the person picture the finished asset? If the sentence would equally cover something they would refuse, it has not described a use.
2. Scope
Where the output may run. Media types, named platforms, territory, and whether paid amplification is included. Organic social and paid media are different grants in practice and should be different lines. Territory has stopped being a formality — the applicable regime depends on where the subject and the audience sit, not where you are.
State expressly whether the grant is exclusive, and if so to what. The exclusivity window entry covers how that interacts with a person's other commitments.
3. Duration
A term with an end date, and what happens at renewal. Perpetual grants are the single most common reason a release gets refused by a represented performer, and the least defensible clause in the document.
Add a separate line for what happens at expiry: deletion of generated assets, and deletion of any trained model or embedding. Those are two different things and only the first is usually addressed. A voice model that outlives the licence is a live liability sitting on a disk.
4. Revocation
The term most releases omit entirely. Decide, in writing:
- Can the person withdraw consent, and on what notice?
- Does withdrawal stop new generation, take down published assets, or both?
- What happens to material already in a paid flight?
- Is there a cure period, and who bears the cost of pulling live creative?
You do not have to grant broad revocation. You do have to decide, because the alternative is discovering the answer during a dispute. A narrow, well-defined revocation right — new generation stops immediately, published assets run out the flight, models are deleted on withdrawal — is negotiable and far better than silence.
5. Representation
Record who represented the person and when they reviewed it. Under AB 2602 this is not paperwork hygiene, it is part of whether the grant is valid at all. If the subject is unrepresented — a customer testimonial, a staff member, a founder's friend — better drafting does not fix it. They need actual advice before signing.
6. Training and retention
State plainly whether the material may be used to train a reusable model, and whether that model may be applied to anything beyond this project. A licence to appear in a campaign is not a licence to become a permanent asset in your library.
7. Sublicensing and assignment
Can the client sublicense? Does the grant travel if the campaign, brand or company is sold? Say so.
8. Disclosure cooperation
Consent does not exempt you from labelling. EU AI Act Article 50 deployer duties apply from 2 August 2026 and require deepfakes to be disclosed to the viewer on first exposure, not buried in metadata. New York's synthetic performer disclosure took effect 9 June 2026 for ads reaching New York consumers. Put the obligation in the release so nobody has to negotiate it during a launch. Synthetic media disclosure covers the terminology.
9. Deceased subjects
If the subject is deceased, this is not a release at all — it is an estate clearance. California's AB 1836, also effective 1 January 2025, requires estate consent for digital replicas of deceased personalities. Different counterparty, different document.
A review step that costs you nothing but a cooldown
The clause most likely to be breached in good faith is the specific use description, because production drifts. The script changes, an extra cutdown gets made, the campaign extends to a platform nobody listed.
The cheap control is showing the person the actual output before it ships. In the Versely editor, the timeline is an EDL you can re-render, and running an edit with preview enabled produces a free 480p pass — it carries a short per-user cooldown, so it is not something to spam, but it is enough to send a real cut for approval before committing to a final export. The final export is charged once regardless of how many clips are on the timeline, so a review round before that point does not multiply cost.
Two habits that pair with it:
- Approval on the asset, not the concept. A signature on a treatment is not approval of the generated performance.
- File the approval with the release. Same folder, same record. When a platform or client asks, the answer takes minutes.
Where this lands in production
If you are producing spokesperson, testimonial or UGC-style content with real people, the release is the first artefact, not the last. The avatar generator, UGC video generator and testimonial video generator all produce assets that depict a person, and all three inherit whatever the paperwork says.
Agencies commissioning from creators should read the influencer marketing agency guide alongside this, and the AI spokesperson trade-offs piece covers the disclosure side of putting a synthetic presenter in front of an audience. For vocabulary across all of it, usage rights is the reference.
FAQ
Can I just add an AI paragraph to our existing release?
You can, and it is better than nothing, but a bolt-on paragraph tends to inherit the vagueness of the document around it. The specific-description requirement is the part that fails when a general release is patched — the new paragraph says "including AI-generated material" and describes no actual use. If you add a paragraph, make it the most concrete one in the document.
What if the subject is an employee?
Employment does not substitute for consent to a digital replica, and the power imbalance makes an unrepresented signature weaker rather than stronger. Treat staff exactly as you would external talent: specific description, scope, term, revocation, and deletion of any trained model when they leave.
Do I need a release for a fully synthetic person?
No publicity release is needed, because there is no rights holder to release anything. Disclosure duties still apply — New York's rule turns on ads featuring a fully synthetic human performer, and Article 50 labelling applies to EU viewers. Keeping "synthetic individual" and "replica of a real person" as separate categories in your brief is the cleanest way to route each one correctly.
Does a release protect me if a platform takes the content down?
No. Platform policy is contractual and independent of consent. A valid release settles the question between you and the person; it does not oblige a platform to distribute the result. Check the platform rules separately, and treat both as gates the content has to clear.