Most consent trouble in AI production is not malice; it is a missing file. A collaboration made sense in a chat thread in March, the set is selling in June, and by September nobody can produce the message where likeness use was agreed. Run the counter like a business: a small, plain record, created before the first generation and kept with the work it covers.
The minimum viable record
For every real person whose face, body or photos enter your workflow, keep four things together: identification (who they are, and how you verified they are an adult), scope (what may be made — stills, clips, swaps, undress transformations — stated in words, never assumed), term (how long the permission runs and whether it can be withdrawn), and the agreement itself (a signed release, or at minimum a written exchange in which the scope is stated and accepted — saved as a file, not left inside a chat app).
Rules that keep the record honest
- Scope is literal. Consent to appear in clothed stills is not consent to undress transformations. When a new use shows up, the record gets a new line — agreed before the job runs.
- Withdrawal is real. If a collaborator revokes, production stops and published pieces come down. A record system that cannot execute a withdrawal is not a consent system.
- Fictional muses need a different file. A purely generated muse has no person to consent — but keep her stall sheet and first frames on file, because “this performer is fictional” is a claim you may one day need to show your working for.
- Records live with the catalogue. The folder for a set holds its consent record next to the deliverables, so an audit never becomes an archaeology project.
When in doubt, do not generate
The economics are asymmetric: one undocumented set can cost an account, a storefront and a reputation, while the set you skipped costs a week. Web3Taiwan’s rules mirror this — uploads and swaps require adulthood and consent, and moderation will ask for the documentation. Having it ready is what professional looks like.