A running record of the acts, the regulation and the cases shaping licensed likeness for AI. Every item links to its source, and carries a plain read of what it means for talent, brands or agencies.
YouTube renamed its copyright menu to "Claims", bringing copyright and AI likeness claims into one place, and gave creators four set replies to a likeness claim: explicit consent from the person shown, parody or public interest, content that was not altered or AI made, and content that does not appear at all. A valid claim now restricts a video rather than striking the channel.
Social Media Today8 stories
YouTube renamed its copyright menu to "Claims", bringing copyright and AI likeness claims into one place, and gave creators four set replies to a likeness claim: explicit consent from the person shown, parody or public interest, content that was not altered or AI made, and content that does not appear at all. A valid claim now restricts a video rather than striking the channel.
The largest video platform now treats a clear yes as a formal answer to an AI likeness claim, and a licence here is that yes, on record.
A platform this size building a consent defence into its own claims process is the standard a campaign can now be measured against.
Casting from a cleared library gives you the named consent a claim like this asks a creator to produce, before the question is even raised.
Article 50 of the EU AI Act requires providers and deployers to disclose AI generated or manipulated depictions of people from 2 August 2026.
The label duty reaches your advert. A cast recorded at the source gives you a clean basis for the disclosure.
Disclosure is arriving at delivery, and a record of consent at the source is what your client's disclosure rests on.
A Danish proposal would use copyright law to give everyone rights over their own face, body and voice to counter deepfakes, and Denmark is pushing the idea across the EU.
The direction of travel is that your face is yours to license, which is the ground this platform is built on.
As rights over a face harden into law, the consented version is the one that stays safe to run.
Stronger personal rights mean the record of consent becomes the thing that keeps delivery clear.
The federal bill creating a right over a person's voice and likeness against unauthorised AI replicas cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, and now moves toward a floor vote.
A federal right you could rely on to license your likeness and act when a use was never agreed.
A clearer federal standard is coming, and a consent record naming the use is how you meet it.
The duty reaches the party that made the content, so a cleared library keeps your delivery on solid ground.
Washington became the latest US state to extend right of publicity protection to AI generated digital replicas of a person's likeness and voice.
More states are protecting your likeness from AI use you did not agree to, and a licence is your evidence of what you did.
The state map is filling in, so a consent record that travels with the asset is the safer footing.
A patchwork of state rights makes one cleared library easier to defend than a fresh release each job.
An AI generated actor prompted strong pushback from performers and SAG-AFTRA over whether the people behind such models agreed and were paid, moving the consent debate into the mainstream.
The public conversation is catching up to the worry you already have, which makes now a good moment to hold the record of your own face.
As the debate grows, the consent first version is the one that reads well to an audience as well as a regulator.
When consent becomes the story, casting from cleared, agreed people is what keeps your work above it.
Two voice actors sued over cloned voices used in commercial output. The court allowed some right of publicity and contract claims to proceed, an early test of AI voice cloning law.
Courts are starting to treat a cloned likeness used without a clear yes as something a person can act on. Consentique licenses your face, on terms you set, with a record of your yes that you hold.
The same consent question is being tested across likeness, and what clears a campaign is a record naming what was agreed. Consentique licenses the face with that record attached.
In force since 19 June 2025, the Act requires clear written consent to create or use an AI digital replica of a model, and places duties on agencies and clients.
Consent for an AI replica now has to be clear and specific, which is the standard the record here is built to.
The duty names the advertiser, and a consent record naming scope and duration is the document your legal team asks for.
The duty reaches the producer too, so casting from a cleared library keeps you clear as you deliver.
This is general information rather than legal advice. Every item links to its source, and the read beside it is a market view rather than a legal opinion. In the news tracks the conversation and links out to it, rather than taking a position on it.
The way a face is used has changed, and the version that clears is the one that agreed. Follow where it is going, and build to the standard as it forms.