Broadcasters need material that satisfies the editorial, contractual, legal and technical requirements of their commission. There is no single AI acceptance certificate that applies to every broadcaster, genre and territory.
The practical starting point is the receiving organisation’s current written requirements. Ask the commissioning, production, legal and delivery teams what they need before the production commits to a method. A supplier’s general assurance is not a substitute for agreement on the actual project.
Explain the intended use
Describe what AI will do in the programme. An invented environment in a drama, a reconstructed historical moment and a synthetic statement presented as a real interview create different editorial questions.
Identify what an audience might reasonably infer from the material. Could the sequence suggest that an event was filmed, that a real person said something or that a location existed as shown? Those implications should be discussed before production rather than left to a late delivery review.
Agree who can approve the use and which changes require another decision. A broad early conversation does not necessarily cover a substantially different scene or a new use of a recognisable person.
Request the relevant policies and specifications
Ask for the production agreement, current editorial guidance, permitted-use conditions and delivery specifications relevant to the commission. Identify any additional requirements from a co-producer, distributor, funder or platform.
Record the version or date of the documents used. If requirements change during production, the team needs to know which work is affected and who decides how to respond.
Do not describe a supplier as universally “broadcast approved” because one project used its work. Acceptance can depend on the particular material and the safeguards agreed for that production.
Prepare the source and permission record
Identify the relevant script, footage, imagery, designs, performances, voices and music used to make the material. Connect each source to its permission or other documented basis for the proposed use.
A recipient may need different levels of detail for review and delivery. Agree a useful summary, the supporting documents available and the route for resolving questions. Avoid sending an unexplained collection of files and treating its volume as evidence of clearance.
For performer material, describe the intended transformations and uses clearly. The agreement should address the actual production rather than relying on a general statement that the contributor consented to being recorded.
Identify the services used without exposing private client data
A commissioner may ask which services processed material and what terms applied. Record the relevant information for authorised review, including any restrictions that affect input handling, output use or confidentiality.
The public promotion of a production and its confidential delivery record serve different purposes. Do not publish restricted production configuration to demonstrate transparency. Provide the agreed information through the approved review channel.
If a service or production approach changes, assess whether the earlier approval still applies. A replacement can alter the security arrangement or the conditions under which material was processed.
Keep editorial accountability clear
Generated imagery can still mislead even when its origin is documented. Provenance explains history; it does not establish that a depicted event is true. A factual programme needs an editorial assessment of the impression created by its images and sound.
The C2PA explainer makes the same distinction: evidence about an asset’s origin and handling cannot, by itself, establish the factual truth of its content. Whether and how to identify a reconstruction remains a question for the programme’s editorial context and the recipient’s rules.
Maintain a route for raising concerns. The person checking technical delivery should not be left to make a new editorial policy decision at the final handover.
Review authorship and contractual promises
The production’s advisers should assess the rights and warranties being offered for the intended territories and exploitation. Separate permission to use source material, copyright questions about outputs, likeness issues and the obligations in the commissioning agreement.
An output’s availability for commercial use and its eligibility for a particular form of copyright protection are different questions. Do not make a worldwide ownership promise on the basis of one country’s guidance or one service’s terms.
Record any approved qualification. An unresolved issue should remain visible until someone with authority accepts or resolves it.
Agree the technical handover
Confirm picture and sound specifications, colour handling, captions, textless elements, additional versions and supporting records. Identify which requirements apply to the finished master and which apply to separate components.
Review the sequence in context before final acceptance. A shot may meet file specifications while still having a continuity, performance or editorial problem. Technical validation and creative approval should both refer to the delivered version.
A useful pre-production checklist
- Describe the AI use and the audience implication.
- Obtain the recipient’s current requirements.
- Name the people who can approve the method and the final material.
- Agree source, permission and service declarations.
- Define editorial review, escalation and delivery evidence.
- Test the representative material before the full sequence is committed.
Further reading
This checklist is a starting point for discussion with the commissioner. It does not replace that organisation’s policies or project-specific legal advice.
Written by Asa Bailey, director and founder of BAI-LEY.
Have a production in mind? Start an enquiry ↗