AI Instead of Catalog Shoots: What the Model Said About Reduced Work and the Use of Her Face

The model said she had worked in the industry for 11 years and had started receiving less work since the beginning of the year. According to her, clients are shifting to AI-assisted creation of catalog content.

This is a personal observation, not a statistic for the market as a whole.

How the model describes the change in demand for shoots

The model attributes the decline in work to brands’ shift toward creating catalog content with AI. She refers to materials that companies commission to showcase products. In her assessment, clients are looking for ways to produce this content with AI; however, the available material is insufficient to establish the reasons behind the brands’ decisions or compare production costs and timelines.

The subject claims that the lack of work has affected more than just models. According to her, photographers and studios in Los Angeles are also receiving less work. This is her assessment of the situation, based on her own contacts and observations. The material contains no data on the number of canceled shoots, changes in income, or the share of AI-generated content in assignments.

What the studio told the model

A separate episode involved a studio where, according to the model, she worked on brand content at least twice a week. She said the studio notified her that there were no new assignments and explained that clients were shifting to AI.

This can be described as a possible chain of changes: a brand changes its method of producing content, the studio loses some assignments, and the model stops receiving invitations to shoots. But the model’s account does not establish how many clients specifically abandoned shoots with people, which systems they used, or whether generation costs were the only reason. The brand’s decision could also have depended on approval speed, the number of product listings, appearance requirements, and contract terms; however, these circumstances are not confirmed in the material provided.

The story about the use of the model’s face in an advertisement

The model claims that one of the brands used her face in an AI-generated advertisement without paying her. According to her account, the brand replied that it had not created an AI model with her face but had simply used her face. The material provided contains neither the advertisement itself, nor the contract, original photographs, correspondence between the parties, or an independent verification of the image’s origin.

The claim cannot be presented as an established fact. The accurate wording is: the model reported the possible use of her face in advertising material without payment, while the brand’s position and the parties’ evidence require separate verification.

Why the legal assessment cannot be considered final

The model said that using her face violated Los Angeles law and that she had warned the brand. Based on the material provided, this conclusion cannot be verified. The material contains no information about consent, the terms of the shoot, how the image was used, the duration of the advertising placement, or payment.

First, it is necessary to establish exactly what the brand did. It may have used the original photograph, altered it with a generative system, created a similar character, or used the face as part of a composite image. The material does not contain enough data to select one of these scenarios or determine the consequences of each. The mere claim that AI was used does not establish a violation, while the absence of a label indicating generation does not allow a conclusion about the legality of the use.

The question of image rights in this story cannot be resolved based on the model’s account alone. Verifying the episode would require the contract between the parties, consent to advertising use, information about the territory and duration of the placement, and the finished material published by the brand. These materials are absent from the excerpt provided, so it is impossible to determine whether the consent extended to synthetic images or whether separate payment was required.

Questions models and brands face

This account shifts the discussion of AI from technology to contracts. It leaves open the question of what exactly the signed document permitted: ordinary publication of a photograph, editing, creation of new images based on the original materials, or the training and use of a digital double. A single reference to advertising use in the material provided does not disclose all the contract terms or the ways the material could be processed.

• Does the contract permit the creation of new images featuring a recognizable person’s face?
• For how long and in which countries is the consent valid?
• Does the model receive separate compensation for synthetic content?
• Can the client transfer the images to contractors and AI-system developers?
• How do the parties document the deletion of the materials after the license term ends?

The material also does not describe how the brand documented the visual material’s origin. It contains no information about the original photographs, permissions, image versions, contracts with the model, the scope of the advertising license, or the person who approved the published material. These gaps make it impossible to compare the advertisement with the documents and establish who was responsible for preparing it.

What this account actually shows

The model’s account can be viewed as her observation of a possible decline in catalog-shoot work under the influence of generative AI. It does not prove that the industry as a whole has already shifted to synthetic content. A separate episode concerns the use of her face: the model claims that she saw it in an advertisement, but the material provided contains neither independent confirmation nor the brand’s response.

And what can be considered confirmed? Only that the model described a decline in her own work, relayed a message from the studio, and reported the possible use of her face by the brand. The material provided contains no independent confirmation of the latter episode, response from the authorities, or final legal assessment.