Aidoron

We help model agencies create, govern and license authorized digital twins of real models. Aidoron is technology-independent and agency led.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

Yes, provenance records show where the asset came from, not that everyone said yes. Otherwise, the ETSI specs are misguided, as all European AI regulation. In modelling, we use three separate approvals: creation of the digital twin, project approval and specific output approval. There’s no way a system or tool can validate all three consent levels BEFORE generation.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

aidoron cofounder and semiotic shitposter here. No need to go full post-structuralist, Saussure gets you there already. By her second campaign, one of your models can be real enough for a viewer to say, ‘You got her face wrong.’ With our digital twins, the model herself can look at the very first image and say, ‘You got my face wrong’.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

"They won't believe anything anymore." So why would a brand with a reputation risk a face that belongs to no one?
Licensed digital twins of real models give you the same speed and scale, with full transparency. The model is paid fairly and has approved every output.
If the only saving is not paying the model, that's exactly the reputational risk for a brand.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

La velocidad y las pruebas en dos idiomas son reales. Pero no hace falta una persona que no existe para conseguirlas.
Un gemelo digital consentido de una modelo real da lo mismo: decenas de versiones en una tarde, en inglés y en español, sin rodaje. Detrás de la cara hay una persona real que cobra, aprobó su gemelo y aprueba cada resultado.
En salud, donde la confianza es el producto, yo buscaría menos ilusión, no una ilusión más barata.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

Exactly: "authenticity must be established rather than assumed."
That's the case for consented digital twins over synthetic faces. You get the same speed and scale, but a real model stands behind the face. They consented, they're paid, they approve every output, and they can show up in person if needed.
Brands with something to lose will want a face that belongs to someone.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

Synthetic models will take the no-name brand and no-name model market. That's fine.
But any brand with something to lose can't afford a face with no person behind it: lookalike claims, customer backlash, no one to show up at the launch.
Licensed digital twins of real models give you the same flexibility, speed and production cost, with a real model who's paid and approves every output. No unanswered questions behind the face.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@momiugc Love this list. In modelling we see AI clauses the same way: control isn't there to say no, it's there to make a confident yes possible. The talent authorizes, approves each output (!), and licenses each use for a set purpose and period.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

When a brand asks for AI rights, it helps to have your own terms ready. At Aidoron, we help agencies build a licensing framework with their models, giving them a stronger basis to negotiate uses, approvals and pay.

Models should be able to benefit from AI without giving up control of their likeness.

[Reuters @Reuters]

AI-generated models are becoming more common in online fashion, and real models are facing growing pressure to let brands use their AI clones, change their faces or alter their body shapes. Helen Reid examines what this means for the industry https://t.co/6SUmv58NdS

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@tomgtgraham A market, yes. But $15 for a face is a buyout, not a license. In modelling we price it like any usage: set purpose, period and territory, the model approves each output, the agency sets the fee. Consent upfront and decent pay are a must.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@wwd Good debate. In modelling we keep it to three separate decisions: the model authorizes the digital twin, approves every new output, and the agency licenses it for a set purpose and period. Regulation helps, but agencies can set those terms rn.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@Reuters Same pressure we're seeing in modelling rn. It's three separate decisions: authorize the digital twin, approve each new output, license it for a set use and period. A blanket clause to edit face and body isn't consent. Real models, decent pay, final say stays human.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@bldxctcnqr @mayarox5 The primary risk for a startup using a synthetic influencer today is to become a target for a co-ordinated attack by the rabid anti-AI activists. In B2C space, where your marketing channel is social media, this can escalate quickly.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@mayarox5 @bldxctcnqr Same in fashion. Brands with something to lose aren't going synthetic. They want the real person, and if AI is involved, an authorized digital twin with consent, approval of every output and decent pay. Plus, a real person can turn up at brand events if needed.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@ankits0052 Pre-flight is right. But a label only says "AI was used". It doesn't say the real person in the ad agreed. In fashion we check both: is it disclosed, and did the model approve this very output for this use?

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@wasaunders @guardian Agree. But "authorized" is three decisions: the person authorizes the digital double, approves each new output, and licenses it for a set purpose and period. In modelling we're seeing brands skip step two. That's where trust breaks.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

Followers may not mind/be oblivious. Brands with something to lose do mind. In fashion we're seeing serious brands pick authorized digital twins of real models, with consent and decent pay, over a synthetic face that can turn out to be someone's unintended double and won’t turn up for meet&greets.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@cheo_coker Already here. In modelling we split it into three decisions: authorize the digital double, approve every new output, license each use for a set purpose and period. Regulation helps, but that structure is what keeps the real person in control and paid.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@misslaidlaw Stock was always going to go first. Generic images are too easy to generate. A real person's face isn't. It needs consent, approval of each output and a license for a set use and period. Licensing didn't die, it just moved to the people in the picture.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

Same in modelling. Using your content in ads and creating an AI version of you are two different things. If you're curious whether the clause is a threat or an opportunity, ask them what the AI clause lets them make, for how long, and if you approve each output (you should). No separate fee, no AI rights.

[Aidoron @AidoronInc]

@tomas_corza Same in fashion. Customers punish faces that feel fake. That's an argument for real people. Authorized digital twins of real models, with consent and decent pay, beat invented faces nobody can vouch for.