Can you put an AI presenter in your advert?

A synthetic presenter is the most tempting video feature there is. Pick a face, paste a script, get a polished piece to camera for the price of a few credits.

It is also the one place in a marketing platform where the output is a human being appearing to say something, and that changes what the tool is allowed to do.

Why this gateway is stricter than the others

An image gateway that renders the wrong thing wastes a credit. An avatar gateway that renders the wrong thing has put a person's face on a claim they never made — and the video outlives the mistake, because the people who saw it keep the file.

So this one refuses before it renders rather than producing something and flagging it.

A stock avatar is a licensed performer

That face belongs to somebody who was paid to be filmed under a licence held by the provider, not by you. Two consequences people discover late:

Several licences forbid whole categories outright — political content, medical content, financial advice. Those cover a large share of what businesses actually want a presenter for, and a refusal at render time is better than a refusal in a takedown notice.

None of them permit implying personal endorsement. The performer may read information. They may not appear to vouch for your product, and no phrasing works around this — "I love this product" in a stock performer's mouth is the exact thing the licence excludes.

That is the limit most people are unknowingly shopping for, so it is worth stating before you pay rather than after.

A custom avatar is a real person you know

If the face is yours, your colleague's or your customer's, it needs a consent record scoped to territory, platform and paid use.

Not a verbal yes. The scope is the part that gets exceeded: somebody agrees to appear in a social post and finds themselves in a paid campaign in another country two years later. A record with the scope on it is how that conversation is avoidable rather than a dispute between people who remember it differently.

Same reasoning as the seventeen rights checked before any asset runs — consent for one use is not consent for another, and an expired consent looks exactly like a live one.

Disclosure, always

Synthetic assets carry a disclosure. Passing a generated presenter off as a filmed person is a disclosure failure first and a creative decision second, and platform rules on this are tightening rather than relaxing.

The practical version: say it is synthetic, in the video. Audiences mind far less than businesses expect, and the alternative is being found out by somebody in your comments who recognises the stock face from a competitor's advert.

One door, so a provider can be dropped

Feature code never calls an avatar vendor directly, exactly as with text and images. A provider can be swapped, repriced or removed without touching a screen — which matters more in this category than any other, because a provider's licence terms can change and a provider can be acquired.

The question to ask

Before any synthetic presenter: would this sentence be a problem if a real person said it on camera?

If yes, the problem is the sentence. The avatar has only made it cheaper to publish.