AI responsible use charter: red lines and agency positioning
The importance of a charter
AI offers considerable opportunities, but carries risks: reputational damage, consumer deception, abusive exploitation of talent. A responsible use charter will help define clear guidelines for luxury houses and the Elite agency. It must be based on regulations (FWA, Californian laws, AI Act) and on consumers’ ethical expectations. The implementation of a charter reinforces Elite’s credibility as an “open, structured and responsible” player.
Regulatory and ethical overview
TheEuropean AI Act requires all AI-generated content to be clearly identified and the data used for training to be transparent. California laws prohibit clauses authorizing digital replicas without consent. The FWA requires separate, detailed consent for the creation of clones. In the US, federal bills such as the NO FAKES Act aim to extend these protections nationwide. The RGPD and the “Copyright” directive already impose respect for personal data and neighboring rights. Finally, new ISO standards on AI governance will see the light of day by 2027. Elite must anticipate these developments.
Matrix of uses: acceptable, conditional, prohibited
To guide its customers, Elite can set up a matrix that classifies practices according to three categories:
-
Conditionally acceptable: light cosmetic retouching, amplification of diversity (variations in skin color, size) when transparency is ensured. Generation of additional images from a physical shoot to feed product pages. Use of avatars for e-commerce catalogs when the model has consented and the avatar is identified.
-
Conditional: transformation of gestures or faces to simulate emotions that have not been experienced, changes to the decor that could mislead the consumer (for example, showing a watch underwater when it is not waterproof). Use of avatars in sensitive contexts such as charity or political campaigns: requires the explicit agreement of the talent and the broadcaster.
-
Prohibited: creation of nudity or sexualized content without consent, political exploitation of avatars, misleading deepfakes. Abusive identity transformation (change of ethnicity, gender) or unauthorized AI training on the model’s image. These practices violate not only ethics but also California and New York law.
Internal processes and governance
To implement this matrix, Elite will have to set up internal processes:
-
Informed consent: each talent must sign a detailed form for each project, specifying AI usage, duration and remuneration. Consent must be renewed for any extension of the campaign.
-
Prompt documentation: record the instructions given to generative models in order to trace the origin of images and prove that prohibited uses are avoided.
-
Ethics committee: regularly bring together representatives of bookers, lawyers, artists and data scientists to validate or reject certain projects. This committee could draw inspiration from Palmer IA’s governance practices.
-
Regular auditing of suppliers: check that AI providers comply with transparency, archiving and provenance standards, in line with AI Act obligations. For example, California requires “provenance disclosure” for generated content.
-
Transparent communication: informing the public when images or videos are generated by AI. Luxury consumers value authenticity; transparency reinforces trust.
Crisis management and feedback
Controversies surrounding AI-generated campaigns, such as Valentino’s “cheap” campaign, show that a lack of transparency can be detrimental to a brand. Elite can draw up a crisis management plan: rapid communication, explanation of intentions, reminder of the charter. In addition, an active watch must be organized to identify new practices (e.g. video generative AI still limited, distortions when models move) and adapt the charter. Finally, Elite will be able to publish transparency reports for its customers to demonstrate compliance and best practices, thus consolidating its position as a trusted third party.
