Does a standard model release cover AI training?

Not reliably. Unless the release names AI or machine-learning training, whether a generic grant covers it is unsettled. A modern release should state its position explicitly — granted or denied — so there’s nothing to argue about.

Should models be paid more for AI training rights?

That’s a negotiation, not a legal requirement. Some photographers price AI-inclusive releases higher; others fold the rights into the general consideration. Whatever you agree, record it in the scope-of-use section.

I shoot for stock — do agencies want AI rights now?

Increasingly some agencies license content for AI training and have separate programs for it. Check your agency’s contributor terms. If you submit to an AI-licensing program, use a release that grants AI training rights explicitly.

Guides

AI Training Rights in Model Releases: What Photographers Need to Know in 2026

Updated June 2026

A model release written before the generative-AI era says nothing about whether a person’s likeness can be used to train a machine-learning model. In 2026 that silence is a problem in both directions: buyers of training data want releases that grant AI rights explicitly, and models increasingly want releases that deny them explicitly. A release that doesn’t mention AI training leaves the most contested use of all undefined.

This guide explains why AI training needs its own clause, what recent law and litigation changed, and how to write the grant so both sides know exactly what was agreed. It’s general information, not legal advice.

Why a generic “use and reproduce” grant isn’t enough

Older releases grant broad rights to “use, reproduce, and publish” the images. Whether that language covers feeding the likeness into an AI training dataset has not been clearly settled by courts — and an ambiguous grant is exactly what leads to disputes. An explicit clause removes the ambiguity: the model knows whether they’re agreeing to AI training, and the person relying on the release gets a clean, defensible chain of consent.

This cuts both ways. If you want AI training rights, say so. If you (or the model) want to withhold them, the release should deny them by default and grant them only where the scope of use spells it out.

What changed: AB 2602, the Fashion Workers Act, and Getty v. Stability AI

Several developments made AI consent a live concern. California’s AB 2602 (effective January 2026) restricts the use of a performer’s digital replica without specific, informed consent. New York’s Fashion Workers Act (2025) added consent and disclosure requirements around models’ digital likenesses. And the ongoing Getty Images v. Stability AI litigation put the question of training-data rights squarely in front of the industry.

None of these turns every photographer into a lawyer overnight, but together they signal the direction: likeness rights for AI uses are being treated as something that must be consented to specifically, not assumed from a generic grant.

How to grant — or deny — AI rights cleanly

Make the default explicit. A well-drafted modern release states a position on AI training rather than staying silent. The safest default for most general photography is to deny AI-training rights unless the scope of use grants them — that protects the model and keeps you from over-claiming.

When you do grant AI rights, fold them into the stated consideration and describe any limits in the scope of use — for example, “AI training limited to internal model development, excluding likeness-generation products.” If separate compensation is agreed for AI rights, record it. The clause grants what the scope describes, so the scope text controls.

Common questions

Does a standard model release cover AI training?: Not reliably. Unless the release names AI or machine-learning training, whether a generic grant covers it is unsettled. A modern release should state its position explicitly — granted or denied — so there’s nothing to argue about.
Should models be paid more for AI training rights?: That’s a negotiation, not a legal requirement. Some photographers price AI-inclusive releases higher; others fold the rights into the general consideration. Whatever you agree, record it in the scope-of-use section.
I shoot for stock — do agencies want AI rights now?: Increasingly some agencies license content for AI training and have separate programs for it. Check your agency’s contributor terms. If you submit to an AI-licensing program, use a release that grants AI training rights explicitly.

Skip the paperwork

Send your model a link or hand over your phone in kiosk mode. The signed release lands in both inboxes — timestamped and locked. Free for your first three releases a month.

Get an AI-training model release template

Related guides

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Model-release law varies by country and US state — adapt to your jurisdiction and consult a lawyer for high-stakes uses.