A procedure for the cases nobody has answered

The situation this course leaves you in

You now know the mechanisms, the failure modes, the disclosure practice and the shape of every major legal disagreement. What you do not have — because it does not exist — is an authority to consult that will tell you whether a particular thing is allowed.

That is uncomfortable and it is the actual condition of the work. Professionals in every field operate under uncertainty using procedures rather than certainty, and this is what one looks like here.

Four questions, in order

1. Is a real person recognisable?

If yes, stop and get consent — informed, specific, written, time-limited, revocable, paid where commercial — and plan the disclosure. If you cannot get consent, do not make it. This question resolves the largest category of serious harm and it resolves it first because the answer is not a balance.

2. Does this substitute for a specific person's work?

Not "does it resemble a style" but: was somebody going to be paid for this, and did you replace them by imitating them specifically? Naming a living artist, training on one person's portfolio, reproducing a distinctive identifiable manner. If yes, the legal position may be open and the professional position is not. Commission them, or do something else.

3. Would the audience change their view if they knew?

If yes, disclose. This is the test from the labelling lesson and it covers factual work, testimonials, journalism, anything presented as a record. If disclosure would defeat the purpose of the piece, that is a strong signal the piece is deceptive rather than a reason to skip the disclosure.

4. What happens if this is wrong?

Reversible and cheap — a social post, a draft, a personal project — proceed and fix it if needed. Irreversible or expensive — a printed run, a broadcast campaign, a registered mark, anything about a real person — slow down, check properly, and get advice where the amounts justify it.

Then write it down

Whatever you decide, record the decision and the reasoning, in three lines, in the job folder.

This is the step people skip and it does more work than the rest. A written contemporaneous note showing that you identified the question, considered it, and decided on stated grounds is the difference between a mistake and negligence — in a dispute, in a client conversation, and in your own judgement six months later when you cannot remember what you were thinking.

What to do when somebody objects

You will occasionally be challenged by someone who believes this technology should not be used at all. Some of them are the people whose work trained the models, and their anger is not unreasonable.

The response that works is not a defence of the technology. It is to say what you actually did: what was generated, what was not, who was paid, what was disclosed, what you declined to do. Specifics are answerable; generalities are not, and a practice you can describe in detail is one you have already thought about.

If you cannot describe it comfortably, that is information about the practice rather than about the person asking.

Where to look things up

The habit worth building is knowing what kind of question you have, because that determines who answers it.

• Copyright in your jurisdiction: the national copyright office, which publishes guidance in plain language.
• Personality and likeness: a media or entertainment lawyer, because it is not a copyright question.
• Disclosure duties: the relevant regulator, and the platform's own policy, which will usually be stricter.
• Model and service terms: the documents themselves, saved with a date.
• Anything with real money attached: a qualified professional in the right country. An hour of proper advice is cheaper than the alternative by an enormous margin.

The last word

Nothing in this course resolves the underlying disagreements, because they are not resolved. What it gives you is the ability to tell which question you are facing, to say accurately what is known and what is not, and to make a decision you can explain.

That is a lower standard than certainty and a higher one than most practice currently meets. It is also, in a field changing this fast, the only standard that will still be worth anything in two years.