For Guilds, Studios, Lawyers, Agents

Legal Architecture

Not a standalone feature — part of the process. Every authorization, token, receipt, and watermark is already a legal artifact. This page makes that explicit.

Contract Layer

DIAP tokens are machine-readable translations of existing guild contracts.

Every license token maps directly to contractual terms — rights, scope, duration, territory

SAG-AFTRA, WGA, and DGA provisions become machine-readable authorization conditions

No new legal framework required — TrustMark operationalizes the contracts that already exist

Two-layer authorization: identity visibility (Layer 1) and project-specific licensing (Layer 2)

Evidentiary Layer

Render receipts + watermarks = timestamped chain of custody, admissible in arbitration.

Every render produces a cryptographically signed receipt with timestamp, scope, and output hash

Dual-layer watermarks (pixel + audio) create forensic provenance on every output

Receipts are two-party signed — both studio and protocol, creating an independent record

Chain of custody is continuous: authorization → render → receipt → watermark → verification

Statutory Layer

Compliant with ELVIS Act, AB 2655, AB 1836, BIPA, EU AI Act.

Tennessee ELVIS Act — TrustMark's authorization layer satisfies the consent requirement for voice replication

California AB 2655 / AB 1836 — watermarked outputs meet the AI-generated content disclosure mandate

Illinois BIPA — informed consent mechanism built into the two-layer authorization flow

EU AI Act Article 50 — provenance chains satisfy the transparency and disclosure requirements

Right of Publicity Layer

Grounded in Midler v. Ford, White v. Samsung lineage.

Midler v. Ford (1988) — voice and performance style are protectable. TrustMark creates the technical record.

White v. Samsung (1992) — the totality of identity carries rights. TrustMark registers behavioral signatures, not just name/likeness.

Right of publicity varies by state — TrustMark provides a jurisdiction-agnostic technical record that supports claims in any jurisdiction.

Posthumous rights — registered identity constructs persist beyond the individual, supporting estate management.

Training Separation

TRAINING_USE is never implied. Always a separate, explicit authorization. Defaults to NO.

Rendering authorization does not imply training authorization — they are separate token types

TRAINING_USE defaults to NO unless explicitly granted via a separate authorization flow

Studios cannot bundle training consent into production licenses — it requires independent approval

Training tokens have their own scope, expiry, and revocation — fully independent lifecycle

Vault Architecture

Stores math, not biometrics. One-way embeddings. If breached — useless without the source.

Identity modules store one-way mathematical embeddings, not raw biometric data

Embeddings are useful for verification but cannot reconstruct the original face, voice, or motion

A vault breach yields mathematical vectors with zero practical value for impersonation

Encryption at rest (AES-256) + client isolation + write-once receipts

Stress Test

Every claim on this site has been audited against the hardest questions the industry will ask.

Pressure Point

Response

"You're claiming to protect what law doesn't cover"

TrustMark is infrastructure, not protection. It creates the record — law decides what to do with it.

"Render receipts = self-incrimination"

Receipts are a contractual pre-condition of certification — not voluntary admission. Studios agree to this as part of the certification process.

"Vault gets subpoenaed"

Vault stores math, not biometrics. One-way embeddings cannot reconstruct the original identity. A subpoena yields mathematical vectors with zero value for impersonation.

"Token implies training license"

TRAINING_USE is never implied. Always a separate, explicit authorization. Defaults to NO. Rendering permission does not grant training permission.

"Emergency revocation breaks valid contracts"

Emergency revocation targets unauthorized use only. Valid licenses are always honored. It's a shared mechanism available to everyone in the authorized chain.

"Audit trail becomes a weapon against studios"

Audit access is scoped by role. Studios see their own submissions. Talent sees their own uses. No party has unilateral access to another's records.

Governance & Legal Foundation

TrustMark IP is being built alongside founding leadership from the AI Trust Foundation.

The AI Trust Foundation is the leading U.S. voice for guiding AI technology to safe and beneficial uses. Founded by AI industry leaders and former U.S. lawmakers, the Foundation works directly with policymakers — including engagement with the White House on national AI governance standards — to develop the frameworks that will define how AI operates responsibly at scale.

TrustMark IP's registration and protection protocol is designed in alignment with these emerging standards — built not just for today's creators, but for the regulatory landscape being written right now.

Ready for industry review

TrustMark\'s legal architecture is designed to withstand scrutiny from guilds, studios, lawyers, agents, and technical integrators. Every artifact is defensible.

Request Access Read the Spec