){kind=logo}
A recently filed lawsuit against Rainbow USA raises an increasingly important question for brands, agencies, retailers and content creators using generative AI tools: When does an authorized modification of a licensed image become an entirely new depiction of an individual requiring separate permission?
The complaint, filed by professional fashion model Francheska Pujols in New York state court, alleges that Rainbow exceeded the scope of a license agreement that permitted the company to use specified photographs and videos depicting the model’s likeness. According to the complaint, Rainbow created and used AI-generated, AI-assisted, synthetic, derivative, composited or materially altered images depicting the plaintiff in poses, body positions, wardrobe presentations and settings that she never photographed or otherwise authorized.
Unlike many recent AI-related disputes, this case is not about training AI models or scraping copyrighted materials. Rather, it focuses on the downstream commercial use of allegedly unauthorized synthetic depictions of an individual whose likeness had already been licensed for commercial purposes.
The allegations highlight an issue that many existing talent agreements were never drafted to address. While traditional licenses frequently permit parties to “edit,” “modify” or “alter” photographs and videos, they rarely contemplate generative AI’s ability to create entirely new visual depictions while maintaining an individual’s recognizable face and likeness.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff licensed Rainbow’s use of photographs captured during authorized photo shoots and permitted certain modifications to those existing images. The complaint alleges, however, that the license did not authorize the creation of new depictions or derivative works introducing poses, body positioning, wardrobe presentations, environments, compositions or visual elements that were not part of the original authorized content, including those created through artificial intelligence technologies.
The complaint further alleges that some challenged images depict the plaintiff in poses and settings that she did not participate in and includes allegations that at least one image displayed her in a manner that exposed undergarments that she never modeled or approved. The plaintiff contends that consumers would understand the images as conveying her continued endorsement or sponsorship of Rainbow and its products.
The plaintiff asserts claims under New York’s Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for false endorsement and false association, unfair competition based upon misappropriation principles and defamation. Among other relief, she seeks injunctive relief, damages, profits attributable to the alleged unauthorized uses and corrective advertising.
Although the litigation remains at its earliest stages, the case presents several issues that may become increasingly common as brands seek to leverage existing content libraries through AI-enabled tools.
