Home/AI & Synthetic Media Law/Likeness Licensing
Practice Area · India
A licence drafted for a photoshoot, television campaign or print use does not automatically cover using that likeness to train or generate AI content. For agencies, rights holders, brands and talent representatives, that gap is usually where disputes start — not because anyone acted in bad faith, but because the licence never turned its mind to synthetic use. This page sets out what scope language a licence needs, and how consent disputes over synthetic use typically arise.
Licences negotiated before generative AI tools were in common use describe scope in terms of media formats, territories and durations that predate the technology. They rarely contemplate two acts that AI use separates out: using a person's image or voice to train or fine-tune a model, and publishing or distributing what that model generates. A licence silent on either is generally read narrowly against the party seeking to rely on it, not extended by implication simply because the underlying photograph or recording was validly licensed for something else.
This matters most for agencies and brands relying on older talent agreements or stock-style releases, and for rights holders whose consent was given for a specific campaign rather than for open-ended synthetic reuse. The fix is not more paperwork — it is scope language that says, in terms, what synthetic use is and is not covered.
Four points that a licence covering AI-generated or synthetic use should address explicitly, rather than leaving to inference.
State separately whether the licence permits using the image or voice to train or fine-tune a model, and whether it separately permits publishing or distributing that model's output. These are distinct acts and can be granted or withheld independently.
Fix a term, state whether the licence is revocable or irrevocable during it, and say what happens to synthetic assets already generated once the term ends. A generated asset can be reused indefinitely once it exists, so expiry needs to address existing output, not only future generation.
Identify the specific platforms, formats and campaigns covered rather than relying on generic “all media now known or hereafter devised” language, which does not clearly signal that the parties turned their mind to synthetic use specifically.
Address whether voice modulation, de-aging or context changes are permitted, and whether an AI vendor or downstream agency may use the licensed material to train its own models beyond the immediate engagement.
A licence that addresses all four points still needs plain, specific drafting. General or aspirational language tends to be read against whoever drafted it once a dispute arises.
In practice, disputes rarely start from an allegation of fraud. They start from scope creep against a licence that was never drafted with synthetic use in mind:
Clear drafting at the outset — separating training use from output use, naming platforms and formats, fixing a term with an express position on existing output, and addressing sub-licensing — resolves most of these before they become disputes. Where a licence is silent and use has already exceeded what was agreed, Indian courts have shown willingness to grant civil injunctions against unauthorised use of a person's likeness, as set out on this site's personality rights page.
A working starting point for drafting or reviewing a licence that needs to cover AI-generated or synthetic use.
Expressly, as two separate grants rather than one undifferentiated licence to "use" the image or voice.
Avoid open-ended "all media" language where synthetic use is intended to be covered.
State what happens to synthetic assets already generated once the licence ends, not only the right to generate new material.
Voice modulation, de-aging, and any restrictions on context in which the synthetic output may appear.
State whether a vendor or downstream agency may use the licensed material to train its own models.
Particularly where a model may be reused beyond the immediate campaign that prompted the licence.
For use that is later found to exceed what the licence actually granted.
Not automatically. A release drafted for traditional photographic or video use does not, without express language, extend to using the images to train a generative model or produce synthetic output.
Silence is generally construed narrowly against the party seeking to rely on it, particularly where synthetic use was not within the contemplation of the parties at signing.
This depends entirely on how the licence is drafted. An expiry clause needs to say explicitly what happens to output already generated, not only address the right to generate new material going forward.
Treating these as two distinct grants is the safer approach. Consent to one should not be assumed to imply consent to the other.
Options include contractual remedies under the licence itself, and, where those are insufficient, civil injunction proceedings against unauthorised use of a person's likeness.
If a matter is time-sensitive — content already circulating, a takedown window running, or a statutory deadline approaching — say so in the first line.
Or write directly to info@bylaw.in
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to advertise or solicit work. By continuing to use this website, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Bylaw.in of your own accord, that no advocate-client relationship is created by your visit, and that the content here is for general information only and is not legal advice.
We also use privacy-first analytics (Google Consent Mode v2, per the DPDP Act 2023) to understand how this page is used. Continuing agrees to this — or continue without it below.