Your Face For Hire: Deepfakes And The Future Of Brand Talent.

Brands are increasingly using synthetic media to create digital likenesses of people, from celebrities to historical figures. This technology has evolved from a novel special effect into a core part of brand infrastructure. However, the use of these "digital twins" presents a new set of challenges and risks, particularly concerning consent, control, and provenance.

From Spectacle to Contract

When a holographic Tupac Shakur performed at Coachella in 2012, it was a striking visual effect, a one-off spectacle. A decade later, the use of a person’s likeness is no longer just a visual stunt; it's a formal business transaction governed by contracts and legal agreements.

The key questions have shifted from "Can we do this?" to "Who has the authority to approve it? Who benefits financially? And what are the long-term implications?" The stakes have risen from mere novelty to a matter of brand trust and legal liability.

The widely reported, but later clarified, story about Bruce Willis selling his image rights to an AI company illustrates this shift. While his team denied a "blanket sale," a digital double was still used in a commercial for the Russian company Megafon. This proves that a market for commercial avatars has emerged, allowing a person's digital likeness to work even when they are unavailable due to health, travel, or language barriers. This reality is what brands must now grapple with.

Digital Twins vs. Deepfakes: The Legal and Ethical Divide

The technology behind a digital likeness is often the same, but the intent and legal standing are vastly different. A deepfake is an unauthorized, often deceptive, synthetic creation. It steals attention and can be used to mislead or defame. A digital twin, on the other hand, is a licensed and intentional version of a person’s likeness. It is created with explicit consent and is governed by a contract. One is a form of theft, while the other is a rental of identity. This distinction is critical and is the first place regulators will look to determine liability.

This divide is clearly seen in how different brands and creators use this technology. For instance, Lay's partnered with soccer star Lionel Messi to allow fans to create personalized messages from his digital likeness. This was a clear, authorized use with the intent of engaging fans. At the same time, creators like "Deep Tom Cruise" have gained a large following by creating polished parodies that profit from a living person's aura without their permission. While one is an approved marketing campaign and the other is parody, they both highlight the need for clear standards around provenance, payment, and disclosure.

The New Rules of Engagement

The legal landscape is rapidly catching up to the technology. The SAG-AFTRA 2023/24 agreements, for example, now include explicit language about consent, compensation, and control for digital replicas. These agreements require performers to give informed consent for scans and replicas and ensure they are paid for their use.

Similarly, California has passed bills to restrict unauthorized digital replicas, and the European Union’s AI Act adds a layer of transparency by requiring creators to label deepfakes and other AI-altered content. The message from regulators is clear: if you use a digital likeness, you must label it, log it, and pay for it.

Because audiences are naturally skeptical of synthetic content, building trust is paramount. One key way to do this is through content provenance standards like C2PA/Content Credentials. This technology embeds tamper-evident metadata into a file, showing how it was created, which models were used, and what edits were made.

This allows platforms and users to verify the origin of the content, moving beyond a simple "trust us" message and providing verifiable proof.

Likeness Is Not a Logo

A person's likeness carries their identity, history, and performance value. Treating it as a simple stock image or a generic logo is a mistake that can quickly erode a brand’s credibility. For brands, the agreement for using a digital likeness must be specific and detailed. It should define the scope of use, including contexts, geographies, and languages. It should also include a clear pricing structure for renewals and require human approval for sensitive or new use cases.

For living talent, their representatives must ensure that their future choices are protected, as "yes forever" is not a sustainable or ethical strategy.

While the financial benefits of using digital likenesses are obvious, one capture session can create global output for multiple markets—these benefits only hold up if the audience sees purpose, not trickery. The creative quality must be high enough to avoid the "uncanny valley," and the legal framework around consent, compensation, and labeling must be robust.

Otherwise, a brand may save on production costs but spend down its most valuable asset: credibility.

Bottom Line

Consent, Control, Provenance

The use of synthetic likenesses has moved from a curiosity to a commercial reality. For a brand to successfully leverage this technology, it must build a foundation of trust.

• Consent: Get explicit, specific, and revocable consent from the individual or their estate and bind it to the digital asset itself, not just a paper contract.

• Control: Implement a workflow with audit trails that log how the asset is used, including the models, prompts, and approval history.

• Provenance: Use on-screen disclosures and verifiable content credentials to show audiences that a likeness is synthetic.

By doing this, a digital twin can become a powerful and reliable part of a brand's infrastructure.