Artificial intelligence is changing how fashion companies produce images for online stores, advertising campaigns and social media. Brands can now create lifelike digital models, alter existing photographs and generate images showing clothing in settings that would previously have required a physical photo shoot. The technology offers a clear commercial attraction: some AI-generated fashion imagery can cost 90% or more less than traditional production. Yet the savings raise a difficult question about who controls a model’s appearance once it has been captured and converted into digital form.

The issue goes beyond whether a brand can replace a human model with a synthetic figure. Fashion companies are also exploring whether they can change a model’s face, create a reusable digital replica or use photographs of a model’s body to train AI systems. Contract terms that permit these activities may extend far beyond the original purpose for which a model was hired. If the rights are broadly defined, a single shoot could potentially provide material for many future campaigns without the model being involved again.

The resulting tension is between commercial efficiency and personal control. Brands want to reduce production costs and create more content at speed. Models, meanwhile, need to know how their identity will be used, how long the permission will last and whether they will receive additional compensation when their digital likeness generates further business.

Digital Models Change the Economics of Fashion

Fashion retail has become increasingly dependent on large volumes of visual content. Online stores need images showing garments from different angles, colours and sizes, while marketing teams produce photographs and videos for multiple platforms. Traditional shoots involve models, photographers, stylists, lighting crews, studios, travel and post-production. Each additional outfit or campaign can add to the cost and time required.

AI-generated images can reduce some of these expenses. Once a suitable digital model or synthetic character has been created, a brand may be able to generate multiple images without arranging a separate physical shoot for every variation. Clothing can be placed into different settings, backgrounds can be changed and some production tasks can be completed much faster than before.

For retailers managing thousands of products, the financial attraction is obvious. Faster image production can help new products reach online stores sooner and allow marketing teams to test different visual styles. Smaller businesses may also gain access to imagery that previously required a substantial production budget. AI can therefore lower barriers to creating polished product presentations.

However, the economics are not entirely one-sided. Businesses still need to check whether garments are represented accurately, whether generated images mislead customers and whether the technology produces consistent results. A digital image that makes a garment appear to fit differently or changes its colour can create customer dissatisfaction and increase returns. The technology may reduce some production costs while creating new quality-control responsibilities.

The larger concern is what happens when cost savings depend on reducing the work available to human models and other creative professionals. If brands can produce many images from a single digital asset, the number of paid assignments may fall, even if the volume of online fashion content continues to rise.

Contracts Were Not Designed for Unlimited Digital Reuse

Traditional modelling agreements generally specify how photographs can be used, including the campaign, territory, duration and media involved. AI complicates these arrangements because a photograph can become the starting point for new material that did not exist when the original contract was signed. A model hired to display one collection may later be digitally placed in different clothing, locations or advertising contexts.

Some proposed contract terms reviewed in recent reporting have sought permission to swap a model’s face using AI, create digital clones without additional payment or use model images to train AI systems. Such requests do not establish that every fashion company follows the same practice, nor do they mean every agreement is legally enforceable. They do show why older contracts may be inadequate for technology that can create new representations from existing material.

The central problem is that permission to use a photograph is not necessarily the same as permission to create a digital replica. A model may agree to appear in a campaign for a defined period without expecting the brand to reproduce their face and body for future campaigns indefinitely. Broad wording can blur that distinction, particularly when the agreement is presented as a standard condition of obtaining work.

Models may also have limited bargaining power. Newcomers trying to establish a career may feel they cannot risk rejecting a contract offered by a major brand. They may not fully understand the technical possibilities or the long-term value of the rights they are being asked to grant. This makes clear explanations and separate consent provisions particularly important.

Consent Must Cover More Than the Original Photograph

A meaningful consent process should identify what a brand intends to create, how the digital material will be used and whether the model can refuse additional uses. Permission to retouch a photograph should not automatically become permission to generate a reusable digital double. Similarly, consent to create a replica for one campaign should not necessarily allow the same replica to be used for unrelated products or advertising messages.

The duration of permission also matters. A campaign may end after a few months, but a digital file can remain usable for years. Without clear limits, a model may lose control over how their likeness appears long after the original booking has finished. The image might be placed alongside products the person never agreed to promote, or it could be altered in ways that affect their professional reputation.

Compensation is another unresolved issue. Traditional modelling work usually involves payment for a shoot and agreed usage rights. A digital replica may generate many additional images without requiring the model to attend another session. If the replica becomes a recurring commercial asset, the original fee may no longer reflect the value being generated.

A fair arrangement could distinguish between the initial shoot, the creation of a digital replica, its use in specific campaigns and any later expansion of those rights. Separate approval and payment terms would help both parties understand what has been agreed. Such protections would not prevent AI use, but they could reduce disputes and provide a clearer basis for commercial negotiations.

Laws Are Developing at Different Speeds

Legal protections for digital likenesses vary between jurisdictions, creating uncertainty for brands and models working internationally. Some laws address the commercial use of a person’s identity, while others focus on privacy, deceptive imagery, employment conditions or the use of personal data. These rules may apply differently depending on where a model lives, where a campaign is produced and where the images are published.

New York’s Fashion Workers Act includes requirements for explicit consent before certain digital replicas of models can be created or used. The law reflects growing recognition that a model’s digital identity requires more specific protection than a general permission to use photographs. However, legal frameworks are not uniform across the United States or internationally, and not every jurisdiction has an equivalent set of rules.

The European Union’s AI legislation also introduces transparency obligations for certain AI-generated and manipulated content, including relevant deepfake material. The precise requirements depend on the type of content and applicable rules. Transparency can help audiences understand when an image has been generated or altered, but disclosure alone does not resolve whether the model consented to the use or received appropriate compensation.

The gap between technological capability and legal protection remains significant. AI tools are improving quickly, while legislation and court decisions take time to establish clear boundaries. This leaves models, agencies and brands facing uncertainty over how existing agreements should be interpreted and what protections will apply to new uses of digital likenesses.

Human Creativity Still Matters

The growth of AI imagery does not mean human models will disappear from fashion. Physical shoots can capture fabric movement, garment fit, lighting and the details of real-world settings in ways that synthetic imagery may not always reproduce accurately. Luxury brands and campaigns built around distinctive personalities may also continue to value the human presence and creative direction that accompany a traditional shoot.

Nevertheless, the impact may be uneven. Routine product images and large online catalogues are more exposed to automation than campaigns where performance, personality or a particular physical setting is central to the creative idea. New models who depend on entry-level commercial assignments may face pressure before more established talent does, although the scale of that effect will vary across brands and markets.

Photographers, stylists, retouchers and production workers may also see changes in their work. AI can automate parts of image editing and content creation, but it can create demand for new skills in digital production, quality control and creative supervision. The key question is whether the industry can adapt in a way that allows workers to share in the benefits rather than absorbing the entire cost of technological change.

Brands also have reasons to protect trust. Customers expect product images to represent what they are buying, and audiences may react negatively if digital models are used in misleading ways or without clear disclosure. A cheaper image is not necessarily a better commercial decision if it damages confidence in the brand.

The Industry Needs Clear Rules for Digital Identity

AI offers fashion companies genuine opportunities to reduce costs, speed up production and experiment with new forms of visual marketing. But those advantages should not depend on treating a model’s face and body as unrestricted digital resources. The right to create a new image from existing material raises questions about consent, payment, ownership and responsibility that cannot be settled simply by making contracts longer.

The most practical response is to establish clear terms before a shoot takes place. Agreements should specify whether digital replicas can be created, what they can be used for, how long the permission lasts and whether separate payment is required for future uses. Models should also have a meaningful opportunity to understand the terms rather than being expected to accept broad provisions as a routine condition of work.

For brands, clearer contracts can reduce legal disputes and help build more sustainable relationships with creative professionals. For models, they can provide greater control over how personal identity is used commercially. Regulators will still have a role in addressing cases where bargaining power is unequal or existing protections are insufficient.

Fashion’s AI transition will ultimately be judged not only by how much money companies save, but by whether the industry develops fair rules for the people whose likenesses help create its commercial value. Technology can make image production cheaper and faster. It does not remove the need for consent, accountability or a reasonable share of the value generated.

(Adapted from CNBCTV18.com)

Categories: Economy & Finance, Strategy