Independent Forensic Review Clears Huffer of Using Model Likenesses in AI Marketing

An independent forensic investigation commissioned by streetwear brand Huffer has concluded there is “no evidence” that the company used the facial likenesses of former models to create controversial AI-generated advertisements. The review, conducted by Incident Response Solutions (IRS), follows allegations from models who claimed their identities were used without consent to generate marketing imagery.

Findings of the Forensic Investigation

The investigation, led by forensic technology and cyber security expert Campbell McKenzie, examined Huffer’s agency workflow, prompt history, and the image-generation process. The summary of findings, released this week, provided the most detailed account to date of how the campaign was produced.

Key conclusions from the IRS report include:
* Facial Redaction: Product images from previous Huffer shoots were used as reference material, but the report confirmed that model faces were “deliberately redacted” before being uploaded to AI tools.
* No Facial Inputs: The investigation found that no facial images of the models were used as prompts, inputs, or references. The prompts used in the AI generation process did not reference specific individuals, models, or previous modelling work, identifying only the subject’s gender.
* Non-Facial Influence: While the report acknowledged that “clothing, poses and other non-facial attributes” from original product photography could influence final AI results, it found no evidence that any individual’s facial features were copied, replicated, or incorporated into the new images.

Huffer stated that it considers the matter “comprehensively investigated” and has maintained that its use of the underlying product photography was permitted because the company owns the copyright to those original images.

Models and Agencies Dispute Scope of Inquiry

Despite the findings, some of the models involved remain dissatisfied, arguing that the report focuses too narrowly on facial imagery while ignoring other components of a person’s likeness.

Elijah Timmins-Scanlon, the model who first raised concerns regarding the campaign, described the report’s findings as “cherry-picked truths.” He argued that while the company may have technically avoided using facial data, it did not address the use of body likenesses. “They’re completely missing aspects like body likeness… they haven’t denied taking our bodies and then just changing the face on it,” Timmins-Scanlon said.

Akshay Raju, another former Huffer model who alleged his likeness was used, noted that the photos used as reference material were the result of the collaborative work between the model and the photographer. “I think likeness in this case extends beyond our faces because the photos they used are a by-product of the model and photographer’s work,” Raju said, adding that such use should require permission and compensation.

Mandy Jacobsen of Red11, the modelling agency representing Timmins-Scanlon, stated that AI usage was not part of the original agreements for those images. She has called for Huffer to release the full, unredacted report—which Huffer has withheld, citing legal privilege and commercial sensitivity—and to withdraw legal letters sent to the models involved.

Legal Perspectives on AI and Likeness

The dispute highlights the ongoing legal uncertainty regarding AI, intellectual property, and the definition of a person’s likeness in the creative industries.

Caitlin Hadlee, a lawyer specialising in entertainment and intellectual property disputes at Hudson Gavin Martin, observed that the investigation answers only a specific part of the broader debate. “All it really answers is whether their faces were used as prompts or inputs into the process by Huffer or its agency,” Hadlee said. She noted that for models whose primary professional value is their physical appearance, there is a strong argument that non-facial attributes—such as bodies and hair—are essential elements of their identity.

Huffer’s Response and Future Policy

Huffer has apologized for its handling of the controversy, acknowledging that its public response “fell short of the standard we expect of ourselves.” In response to the fallout, the brand has removed the contested images from circulation and announced a new AI policy.

Under this new policy, Huffer has pledged that it will not use artificial intelligence to generate imagery from a person’s photograph or likeness without “explicit written consent.” Furthermore, the company stated it would not use previous modelling photography outside the scope of original usage agreements.

However, the brand has warned that it will take “appropriate steps” to protect its reputation if the allegations continue. Huffer has issued legal letters to those involved in the dispute, warning against further public claims now that it considers the investigation concluded.

Find more reporting in our News section.