So to me that means this is either a real ad with real people, and the female model just happens to look like the OOP. Or the people who made this ad stole the guy's likeness, too. But stealing the face of a guy who's job is doing ads, to make an ad, seems pretty ballsy.
I guess a third option is the guy doesn't exist at all, and all of that stuff is a rabbit hole of inauthenticity.
I think there might be a small handful of humans whose visage is so distinctive they can definitely know (or more importantly, prove) an AI image is of them and not a doppelganger. I can't imagine winning this case.
Can't prove a negative. Proving 'it's an image of me' is as easy as holding the image next to your face. Proving 'it's not an image of you, but of a doppelganger' requires proof such a doppelganger exists.
If the response is "This is what the image AI produced from a generic prompt" (if there even is a response), then what? Who do you sue, and how much does THAT cost?
I have my doubts this would ever catch on, people will be creeped out and furious for ads (generally speaking), perhaps online clothing shops previewing is palatable
A reverse image search of the guy turns up a bunch of different ad campaigns, most prominently for something called Darigold.
From their site:
- https://www.darigold.com/wp-content/uploads/Product-Card-Lif...
Here's two from the photographer's site who worked on the ad:
- https://www.chrisozer.com/portfolio/product?itemId=5bb25amf1...
- https://www.chrisozer.com/portfolio/product?itemId=onjuiki2x...
And this one on the portfolio page of the "hair and make-up artist:"
- https://lucabuzas.com/portfolio/darigold-commercial-los-ange...
He's also here in the upper right, I think in a Fruit of the Loom commercial:
- https://www.ehy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/EHY-Sliders_3...
So to me that means this is either a real ad with real people, and the female model just happens to look like the OOP. Or the people who made this ad stole the guy's likeness, too. But stealing the face of a guy who's job is doing ads, to make an ad, seems pretty ballsy.
I guess a third option is the guy doesn't exist at all, and all of that stuff is a rabbit hole of inauthenticity.
I think there might be a small handful of humans whose visage is so distinctive they can definitely know (or more importantly, prove) an AI image is of them and not a doppelganger. I can't imagine winning this case.
Can't prove a negative. Proving 'it's an image of me' is as easy as holding the image next to your face. Proving 'it's not an image of you, but of a doppelganger' requires proof such a doppelganger exists.
If the response is "This is what the image AI produced from a generic prompt" (if there even is a response), then what? Who do you sue, and how much does THAT cost?
The business. No matter how it was generated they used the imagery and are responsible for any infringements or liabilities.
In a world where privacy is dead this is to be expected. I'm sure in 10 years time everyone will think of this as the new norm
Ads of you wearing the clothes they are trying to sell you. Yet another torment nexus to build!
“Don’t Create the Torment Nexus” in this case is Stand on Zanzibar from 1968, which called this concept Mr and Mrs Everywhere
I have my doubts this would ever catch on, people will be creeped out and furious for ads (generally speaking), perhaps online clothing shops previewing is palatable
[dead]