A model release should not be assumed to cover an AI transformation merely because it permits photography or video. Compare the actual planned portrayal with the documented consent, and obtain qualified review where the scope is unclear.
Describe the portrayal before reviewing consent
Write a short, concrete description of the proposed scene: who appears, what changes, what they seem to do or say, and where viewers will encounter it. Avoid broad descriptions such as “creative enhancement” that conceal the real decision.
Runway's ownership language addresses rights between you and Runway. It does not establish that a person has consented to likeness alteration, a new endorsement or a different context. The supplied evidence also does not establish any particular likeness-editing capability.
Use a release-scope questionnaire
Ask these review questions before any submission of likeness material:
- Does the documented consent address the specific AI-assisted transformation being proposed?
- Are changes to appearance, age, clothing, expression or setting described clearly enough for meaningful discussion?
- Could the result imply speech, conduct, product endorsement or personal experience that the person did not approve?
- Which channels, campaign duration and territories have been discussed?
- Are paid advertising, later cutdowns and reuse covered in the agreed scope?
- What approval process will apply to the finished portrayal and significant revisions?
- What questions about upload, retention and handling of likeness material remain unanswered by the reviewed documents?
These are questions for the parties and their advisers, not a declaration that any release is legally sufficient. Do not clone a person's likeness or voice without consent.
Hypothetical example: a fitness promotion
Suppose a Hyderabad production team has consent for a performer to appear in a conventional studio shoot. It later proposes a synthetic mountain-running scene for a fictional fitness brand, intended for eight weeks of India-targeted advertising.
The evaluation should compare the new scenario with the original agreed portrayal. Does it suggest an athletic achievement, travel experience or endorsement beyond what was discussed? Has the performer seen a plain-language description of the proposed changes? Does the approval cover the final context rather than only the original photograph?
If these questions are unresolved, the existing signature is not a reason to skip clarification. An abstract, person-free concept may let planning continue without submitting the performer's material.
Stop before the unapproved transformation
Pause when the proposed use materially exceeds the documented discussion. Next, obtain specific clarification and qualified review, or redesign the scene without the likeness.
If procuring access, check the AI tools catalog for access format and save offer terms before buying. Marketplace account/code/token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence and do not establish consent or privacy safeguards.
Sources and scope
Runway usage rights establishes Runway's bounded ownership statement, not release sufficiency or data-handling details. Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. The questionnaire is editorial advice; seek qualified review for legal conclusions.