Reuters reveals fashion brands seeking AI replica and training rights in model contracts

A fashion shoot could give a brand more than photographs: permission to swap faces, create digital replicas without extra compensation, or train AI on a model’s images. A Reuters investigation published October 27 reveals those requests in unsigned contracts, exposing how negotiations over a single job can reach into a model’s future work.

Reporter Helen Reid interviewed 15 model-agency directors and examined more than a dozen confidential photo-shoot contracts. The findings show two routes toward cheaper fashion imagery: reusing or altering real people’s images, and generating synthetic models that are not based on existing humans. Both threaten work, but they raise different questions about permission and payment.

Rights requested versus images actually made

The documents describe proposed permissions, not proof that every requested use occurred. Several brands challenged the implication that broad contractual rights reflected their normal practices. Three examples show the range of rights sought and the companies’ responses:

• Diesel’s casting sheet sought permission to change facial features and body proportions, swap faces among participating models, and put a model’s face on someone else’s body. Parent company OTB said the release concerned one campaign, did not represent its typical agreements, and did not mean it systematically altered models with AI.
• A Calvin Klein draft sought permission, without extra pay, to train and fine-tune AI using images stripped of identifying features such as faces, scars and tattoos. The brand said it was testing the technology and that regulation, industry standards and respect for models’ rights guided its use.
• Skincare brand Reale Actives sought rights to create, own and use AI replicas for a year without further compensation. It said it had not replicated any model using AI and attributed the wording to an unnamed production partner.

L’Oréal’s contract requested AI rights for modifying cosmetic products, packaging and shades, as well as retouching. Without addressing that wording, the company said its standard AI editing tools did not affect models’ images. Lawyer Melanie Howard, who represents brands and talent, warned that open-ended contract language makes unauthorized uses harder for models to challenge.

The savings pitch reaches beyond digital doubles

About You’s Scayle Studios illustrates the alternative: selling retailers imagery made with AI-generated models. The business promises production-cost reductions of more than 90%. A company spokesperson told Reuters it had 130 brand clients and generated 190,000 outfits in the previous month. Those scale and savings figures are company claims.

The employment pressure is already visible. Zalando adopted AI-generated marketing imagery and closed both Berlin photo studios in 2025. Reuters reported more than 340 job cuts overall, although the company said some affected employees stayed in other roles. About You also closed its studio.

Signing away AI rights at 20 years old could still affect someone ten years later.

Patrick Staal, owner of Barcelona-based Uniko Models, speaking to Reuters

Consent law versus voluntary promises

New York offers a binding protection. Since June 2025, the state’s Fashion Workers Act has barred brands from creating or modifying replicas of models without explicit consent. Model Alliance, which backed the legislation, is pushing for similar protections in other states and at the federal level.

The British Fashion Model Agents Association has instead drawn up an AI code of practice requiring consent and leaving ownership of a digital twin with the model. Its head, John Horner, warned that without binding regulation in Britain or Europe, less scrupulous agents could still exploit models. The contrast is between enforceable permission and an industry’s voluntary rules—not simply whether a brand uses AI.