AI in fashion: innovation meets modeling

In recent years, the integration of artificial intelligence into the fashion world has accelerated, with brands turning to digital technology to reimagine how clothes are designed, showcased, and sold. One of the most striking developments is the creation of AI-generated “twins” of human models—digital replicas that can be programmed to walk runways, pose for photoshoots, and appear in campaigns, all without the logistical challenges that come with human talent.

Supporters of this trend in Australia and globally argue that it represents a leap forward in creative freedom and efficiency. With AI models, fashion houses can produce content faster, reduce costs associated with travel and production, and experiment with bold, futuristic aesthetics. These digital models can be endlessly customised, allowing designers to visualise garments in a variety of settings and styles before committing to production.

For the models themselves, some see the use of AI as an opportunity. By licensing their likeness, they can earn income without physically being present, effectively working on multiple campaigns simultaneously. This could offer greater flexibility and control over their schedules, a welcome shift in an industry often criticised for its gruelling demands and lack of work-life balance.

In Australia’s fashion scene, where emerging designers and independent labels often operate on tight budgets, the use of AI models could level the playing field. Smaller brands may find it easier to access high-quality visuals and promotional materials without the financial burden of traditional photoshoots. This democratisation of content creation could foster more innovation and diversity within the local industry.

At the same time, the technology is being embraced as a marketing tool. AI-generated content can be tailored for different platforms and audiences, enabling brands to stay relevant in an increasingly digital and fast-paced retail environment. With social media driving much of today’s fashion consumption, the ability to quickly generate eye-catching visuals is a competitive advantage many are eager to adopt.

Consent versus control: the ethics of digital likeness

While some models are entering into agreements to license their digital likenesses, the question of how much control they retain over these virtual versions remains contentious. In theory, consent is granted at the outset—but in practice, the terms of that consent can be vague or overly broad. Contracts may allow brands to reuse, modify, or even sell an AI-generated twin’s image in perpetuity, raising concerns about whether models truly understand the long-term implications of these deals.

In Australia, where the modelling industry is already grappling with issues of representation, pay equity, and workers’ rights, the arrival of AI-generated personas adds another layer of complexity. Legal protections around image rights vary, and digital likenesses may not be fully covered under existing intellectual property or employment laws. Without clear regulation, there’s a risk that models could lose control over how their image is used—even if they initially agreed to its creation.

Critics argue that this dynamic shifts the power further into the hands of brands and tech developers. Once a digital twin is created, it can be manipulated to wear any outfit, perform any action, or appear in any context, potentially without the model’s ongoing input or approval. This raises ethical questions about identity, autonomy, and consent—particularly if the AI version is used in campaigns or contexts the model would not personally endorse.

“It’s not just about giving permission once,” says a Sydney-based modelling agent. “It’s about ongoing consent and the ability to say no to how your image is being used five or ten years down the track.”

Some models are pushing back by negotiating stricter terms and seeking legal advice before signing over their digital rights. Others are calling for industry-wide standards that would ensure transparency and fair compensation for the use of AI likenesses. There’s also a growing movement among Australian creatives to advocate for ethical AI practices, including the right to revoke consent and the establishment of digital usage limits.

Even with these efforts, the balance between consent and control remains precarious. As AI technology becomes more sophisticated, the potential for misuse or overreach increases. For many in the industry, the concern is not just about how AI is used today, but how it might evolve in ways that further erode the agency of human models in the future.

The future of labor: real models versus virtual twins

The rise of AI-generated models is prompting a fundamental re-evaluation of labour in the fashion industry, particularly around the roles and rights of human models. As virtual twins become more prevalent, there is growing concern that real-life models could find themselves edged out of the market. With digital replicas capable of working around the clock, never aging, and requiring no travel or accommodation, brands may be tempted to replace human talent with their virtual counterparts to cut costs and streamline production.

In Australia, where the modelling industry supports thousands of workers—from runway models to commercial talent—this shift could have significant economic and cultural consequences. Human models bring more than just physical appearance to a campaign; they offer personality, lived experience, and the ability to connect with audiences in ways that algorithms cannot replicate. Yet, as AI becomes more advanced, the gap between real and virtual presence is narrowing, raising fears that the unique value of human performance could be undervalued or dismissed entirely.

Industry professionals are already seeing signs of change. Some modelling agencies are beginning to diversify their portfolios, offering digital versions of their talent alongside traditional bookings. Others are exploring how to train models in digital literacy and branding so they can remain competitive in a hybrid industry. For younger models entering the field, the path to success may increasingly involve managing both a physical and virtual persona.

However, not all models will have equal access to these opportunities. Creating and maintaining a high-quality digital twin requires significant investment in technology and legal support. This could deepen existing inequalities in the industry, favouring those with the resources to navigate the digital shift while leaving others behind. For many Australian models—especially those from underrepresented backgrounds—the risk is not just being replaced, but being excluded from the future of fashion altogether.

Some fashion insiders argue that rather than replacing human models, AI twins should be used to complement them. Virtual counterparts could take on repetitive or physically demanding tasks, freeing up real models for more creative and collaborative work. This hybrid model could preserve jobs while embracing innovation—but only if implemented with care and with input from those whose livelihoods are at stake.

As the industry continues to evolve, there are calls for stronger labour protections that reflect this new reality. Unions and advocacy groups in Australia are beginning to explore how existing frameworks can be updated to include digital work and AI representation. Ensuring fair pay, proper attribution, and the right to opt out of certain uses are just a few of the issues now on the table. Without these safeguards, the promise of AI in fashion risks becoming another chapter in the long history of labour exploitation.

Digital doubles and the illusion of control

In the fast-evolving world of fashion tech, AI-generated “twins” of professional models are quickly becoming more than just a novelty. These digital doubles—crafted using sophisticated algorithms and 3D imaging—can mimic a model’s walk, pose, and even their subtle expressions. On the surface, it’s a futuristic solution that promises flexibility and creative freedom. Models can license their image, skip the jet lag, and still appear on runways from Sydney to Paris.

But how much control do they really have?

While many models are consenting to the creation of their digital selves, the long-term consequences of this choice are murky. Once their likeness is digitised, it becomes a product—easily replicated, manipulated, and distributed beyond their immediate oversight. Even with contractual protections in place, the power balance often favours the brands and tech firms who now hold the keys to their virtual identity.

“It’s not just about giving permission once,” says a Melbourne-based fashion rights advocate. “It’s about how that image is used for years to come—possibly in ways the model never imagined.”

For Australian models, especially those building global careers, the appeal of AI doubles is clear. But so too is the risk. The industry’s embrace of virtual replicas may be reshaping what it means to be a working model, raising questions about authorship, autonomy, and the authenticity of presence in fashion spaces that have long valued the human touch.

The ethics of replacing humans with AI

The fashion industry has always been a space where innovation meets artistry—but when innovation begins to replace rather than support human talent, the ethical lines become blurred. As AI-generated models take centre stage, there’s growing concern that we’re not just enhancing fashion, we’re rewriting its workforce.

What happens when a digital twin becomes more bookable than the woman she’s based on?

Brands benefit from AI models that never age, never tire, and never ask for overtime. But for human models, stylists, photographers, and even set crews, the rise of virtual talent could mean fewer opportunities and shrinking relevance. In Australia’s fashion scene—where local creatives already face stiff global competition—this shift could undercut an industry that thrives on human collaboration.

“We’re seeing a quiet displacement,” says an Adelaide-based fashion producer. “It’s not that people are being fired—it’s that they’re not being called at all.”

There’s also the question of responsibility. If an AI model is styled inappropriately, or used in a campaign with problematic messaging, who is held accountable? The model whose face inspired the avatar? The coder? The brand? Without clear ethical frameworks, the use of AI in fashion risks becoming a loophole for avoiding human accountability while still profiting off a human image.

• AI models can be reused across campaigns with no additional cost, reducing demand for live shoots.
• Digital doubles may be altered to fit unrealistic beauty standards, reinforcing harmful norms.
• Consent at the start doesn’t guarantee control over future uses of a model’s likeness.

In a country like Australia, where the fashion industry is deeply tied to identity, culture, and community, these shifts aren’t just technical—they’re deeply personal. As AI continues to evolve, the industry must ask: are we using technology to support talent, or to sideline it?