California AB 2602 and SB 1287, both signed in 2024 and now in force, represent the most detailed performer protection framework in the United States for AI-generated digital replicas. For fashion brands — which frequently work with Los Angeles-based models, photographers, and creative talent — these laws have immediate practical implications that most brands haven't yet integrated into their standard agreements.
What AB 2602 covers
AB 2602 prohibits using a "digital replica" of a performer to provide the performer's services without explicit written consent. The law was primarily drafted with the entertainment industry in mind — film productions using AI to replace actors — but the California Attorney General's 2025 enforcement guidance explicitly broadened the interpretation to cover commercial imagery, including fashion campaigns.
A "digital replica" under AB 2602 is a highly realistic AI-generated depiction of an individual's likeness that is created without their participation. This definition has been interpreted to include:
Fully synthetic AI-generated models based on the likeness of a real California-resident performer, even if not intended as a deliberate replica of that specific person.
AI-generated composites that combine elements of a real performer's appearance with AI-generated elements.
AI alteration of real imagery that substantially changes a performer's appearance — per the AG's January 2025 guidance, this now explicitly includes AI body alteration in fashion campaign imagery.
What SB 1287 adds: deceased performers
SB 1287 extends performer protection under AB 2602 to deceased performers for 70 years after death. This means that using AI to recreate or substantially replicate the likeness of a deceased California performer in commercial imagery requires consent from the performer's estate.
For fashion brands, this has specific implications for:
Archival imagery reactivation. If you're thinking about using AI to recreate past campaigns featuring deceased talent in a contemporary context, that requires estate consent under SB 1287.
AI-generated historical fashion figures. Using AI to generate imagery featuring the likeness of deceased fashion icons or historical cultural figures who were California residents requires estate consent. This is narrower than it sounds — the deceased person must have been a California resident — but the entertainment-adjacent nature of the fashion industry means this applies more frequently than in other commercial sectors.
The AG guidance: AI body alteration is explicitly covered
The most significant development in California's digital replica framework in early 2025 was the AG's enforcement guidance interpreting AB 2602 to cover AI alteration of real performer imagery — not just full AI replacement.
The guidance states explicitly: AI that alters a performer's body, facial characteristics, or physical appearance in commercial imagery constitutes creating a "digital replica" within the meaning of the Act, regardless of whether the AI rendered the performer from scratch or modified an existing photograph.
This dramatically expands the practical scope of the law for fashion brands. Any AI alteration of body proportions, skin tone, facial features, or physical characteristics in campaign imagery featuring California performers now requires consent under AB 2602 — not just full AI model replacement.
What consent must include
AB 2602 requires written consent before creating or using a digital replica. The consent must be:
Explicit about the AI use contemplated. "The brand may use AI" is not sufficient. The consent must describe the specific type of AI use — body alteration, likeness extension, archival recreation — with enough specificity that the performer knows what they're agreeing to.
Fairly compensated. AB 2602 requires that compensation for digital replica use be "reasonably negotiated and comparable to what the performer would have received for providing the services directly." If you're using AI to extend a model's appearance across more looks than they were physically photographed in, the compensation for the AI use should reflect the value of those additional appearances.
Preceded by union/guild notification. If the performer is a member of SAG-AFTRA or another relevant union, the brand must notify the union before creating a digital replica. Most professional fashion models in California are represented and may be SAG-AFTRA members through their acting or commercial work.
Revocable with reasonable notice. Like the NY Synthetic Performer Act, AB 2602 preserves the performer's right to revoke consent. The consent agreement must include a mechanism for revocation.
The overlap with NY law and FTC requirements
California AB 2602 + SB 1287, NY Synthetic Performer Act, and FTC AI disclosure requirements are the three primary legal frameworks affecting AI use in fashion campaigns involving real people. They are compatible but not identical:
The California laws focus on consent for digital replica creation. The NY Synthetic Performer Act focuses on consent for commercial use of synthetic likenesses. The FTC requirements focus on disclosure to consumers.
A brand that has California talent consent under AB 2602 has not necessarily met NY Synthetic Performer Act consent requirements, and vice versa. And neither consent satisfies the FTC's consumer-facing disclosure obligation.
The practical solution: draft model agreements that satisfy all three frameworks simultaneously — a single comprehensive agreement that addresses the consent specificity required by California, the separate consent structure required by New York, and the disclosure language that satisfies FTC requirements. This is achievable in one document, but it requires deliberate drafting rather than adapting a standard release.