Human ID
About

Who this is for

Human ID is for the two people on either side of a likeness deal — the person whose face or voice it is, and the agency that wants to use it. It gives them one document, signed by both, that anyone downstream can check without either of them present.

The provenance gap

A synthetic performance is cheap to make and almost impossible to source. A brand receives a finished advertisement and has no way to establish that the face in it was licensed, from whom, for which platforms, or until when. The permission usually does exist — in an email thread, a signed PDF, a producer's memory — but none of those can be handed to a third party as proof.

That gap is not a paperwork problem. It is the reason a creator cannot prove a campaign exceeded what they agreed to, the reason an agency cannot demonstrate that it did not, and the reason a platform reviewing a takedown has nothing to look at but two conflicting accounts.

What is missing is not consent. It is a form of consent that survives being passed on.

What a licence names

The grant is written as a structured document rather than prose, so that every term is a field a machine can compare rather than a sentence a lawyer must interpret. A licence always names:

  • The three parties — the creator, the agency, and the client the work is for.
  • Which likeness is licensed: face, voice, or both.
  • What may be done with it: AI-generated content, model training, commercial advertising, sublicensing — each granted or withheld explicitly, never by omission.
  • Where it runs: the platforms and the territories.
  • For how long: a start date and an expiration date.
  • For how much, and in which currency.
  • And any restrictions written in plain words — no political advertising, no implied endorsement beyond the named campaign.

What a signature commits to

Both parties sign the fingerprint of that document with a wallet. They are not signing a scan or a screenshot; they are signing the SHA-256 of an exact byte sequence, which means a licence cannot later be edited into something either of them did not agree to without the signature ceasing to verify.

The signed message says in plain words what it is and what it is not: it authorises a licence record, and it transfers no funds and grants no spending permission over the wallet. Someone approving a wallet dialog should be able to read what they are agreeing to.

How a third party checks it

  1. They open the certificate at the licence ID — no account, no request to either party.
  2. They read the scope: which rights, which platforms, which territories, which dates.
  3. They confirm that both signatures verify against the wallets that claim to have made them.
  4. If they hold a copy of the document, they re-hash it and compare. A single altered character makes the two disagree.

What we deliberately do not do

Several things this product could plausibly do are things it refuses to do, and the refusals are as much the design as the features:

  • We do not hold anyone's biometrics. No image or recording of a real person is needed to create a licence, and nothing resembling a face or a voice is ever written to a chain.
  • We do not escrow the fee. The agency pays the creator directly, wallet to wallet, and the platform's only job is to say whether that happened.
  • We do not adjudicate. A proof establishes that a record exists and has not been altered — not that the person who signed it held the right to grant what they granted.
  • We do not make the licence depend on the network. A licence takes effect when both parties have signed, whether or not a blockchain node is reachable that day.

Who ends up using it

  • Creators, who want a record of exactly what they agreed to and a way to point at it later.
  • Agencies, who want to demonstrate that a campaign stayed inside its grant without disclosing the commercial terms to everyone who asks.
  • Brands and platforms, who receive finished work and need to check its provenance in seconds, from a reference number, without joining anything.

Where this stands

This is a working demonstration rather than a company. It runs against Solana Devnet with test tokens, its data lives in a local database, and it has been reviewed by neither an auditor nor a lawyer.

Read it as an argument about how likeness licensing could work, made in running code instead of in a deck. Every claim on these pages can be checked against the source, which is the only kind of claim worth making about a verification product.

Nothing here is legal advice, and a licence produced here is not a contract drafted for your jurisdiction. See the terms of use before relying on anything.