Los Angeles Software Development Company: A Data Model for Performer Consent and Rights

Updated November 2026 · Written and maintained by the Progression Agency strategy team

A database column named replica_consent looks simple until a lawyer asks what was consented to, for which project and when. California’s digital replica statutes turn that column into a table. A Los Angeles software development company working for studios, post houses and talent firms has to model what a performer agreed to, not just store a yes. This page walks a rights data model table by table: people, performances, uses, consents and training data. It is for operations, legal and product leads. Progression’s team is based in New York and works with Los Angeles clients remotely, with on-site sessions on request.

A column called replica_consent

Here is one row from a table, invented for this page. The column is named replica_consent and the value is true. It answers a question nobody asked. The cards show what a lawyer asks next.

A boolean cannot carry any of that. The rest of this page replaces the single column with five tables that can.

Who is this page for?

Operations, legal and product leads at studios, post houses, talent firms and the vendors that build their tools. If your Los Angeles business has no performers, the habits still help.

Why a Los Angeles software development company starts with the statute

California Labor Code section 927 says a provision in an agreement for personal or professional services is unenforceable only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual, if the provision meets all of its listed conditions. One condition is that the provision allows creation and use of a digital replica of the individual’s voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person. Another is that the provision does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, with an exception the statute spells out. The third is that the individual was not represented by legal counsel or a labor union in the ways the section describes.

A software team reads that and sees fields. A fixed date. A flag for work otherwise performed in person. A text description of intended uses. A representation status. None of that is legal advice, and which agreements the section reaches is a question for counsel. The job of the data model is to hold the facts that counsel will need.

1. People and representation.
2. Performances.
3. Intended uses.
4. Consents and who may give them.
5. Training data.

Table 1: people and representation

The first table holds the person and how they were represented when they signed. The statute makes representation a condition, so it is a column and not a note.

Record who represented the person and in which way, using the two categories the statute names, and leave the contract terms of any union to the people who negotiate them. Do not guess a value when the file is silent; a blank that says unknown is better than a yes.

• Person identifier that carries no name in logs.
• Role on the project.
• Whether the person was represented when signing.
• Which kind of representation, counsel or union.
• Date signed.
• Who entered the row.

Why is representation a column?

Because section 927 turns on it. A search for every performer who was not represented, by project, is a one line query when the column exists.

Table 2: performances

The second table holds each performance, because the section reaches a new performance fixed on or after January 1, 2025. The fixed date decides which side of that line a row falls on.

The last column mirrors the first condition in the statute. It is a plain yes or no with a short note, and counsel decides what it means.

Table 3: intended uses

This is the most important table. A use is a row, not a sentence in a contract. The statute speaks of a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and a row with a project, a medium, a territory and a term is how software makes that description checkable.

What fields hold a reasonably specific use?

Project, medium, territory, term and a free text description in the contract’s own words. Add a controlled value for whether the use is a digital replica. Section 3344.1 defines one as a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual, in a recording, image, audiovisual work or transmission in which the person did not actually perform or appear, or whose fundamental character has been materially altered. Let the legal team set the value; do not let a default decide it.

What happens when a use changes after signing?

Add a new row, with a new date and a link to the amendment, and keep the old row. Whether a changed use needs new consent is a question for counsel. The system’s job is to show the history.

Table 4: consents and who may give them

The fourth table holds the consent itself: who gave it, on which date, for which use rows, and on what authority. For a living performer the signer is the person or their representative. For a deceased personality, California Civil Code section 3344.1 names persons in subdivision (c) whose prior consent matters, and the legal team should maintain that list.

The statute puts liability for an unconsented digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording at the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, with listed exceptions such as news, comment, criticism, scholarship, satire and parody. A system should never quote that figure as a price of doing business. It should make the missing consent visible before release.

• A consent that does not point to a use row is a warning.
• A use row with no consent is a gap on the audit view.
• A signer with no authority recorded is flagged for legal review.
• Dates are stored as dates, never as text.
• Every export carries the date it was run.

What a software company in Los Angeles charges for a rights system

No city-specific price is published, so this section gives the published US bands for the build types a rights desk tends to need. Hosting, licenses and security testing are on top.

Published bands for portals and internal tools

The table runs from the typical low to the published high.

Where does the money go in this data model?

Often into migration. Old deal memos live in PDFs and inboxes, and turning them into use rows takes a structured review by the legal desk. Progression quotes after a written scope, and the migration is listed as its own line.

Table 5: training data

California Civil Code section 3111 says that on or before January 1, 2026, and before each later public release of a generative AI system or a substantial modification of one, its developer shall post documentation about the training data on its website. The listed items include the sources or owners of the datasets, whether they were purchased or licensed, whether they include copyrighted, trademarked or patented data, personal information, cleaning or processing, the collection period and the dates first used. The section lists exclusions, so ask counsel whether it reaches a given system.

A studio whose vendor builds a generative tool should be able to ask for these fields and get them. Our AI integration services page covers the build side.

The audit view: one person, every use

The payoff is one query. Give a clearance desk a person, and the system returns every performance, every use, every consent and every amendment, in date order, with the representation status beside the first row.

• Export the result for counsel as a table, not a screenshot.
• Let counsel set how long the record is kept.
• Limit who can open a talent file, and log each opening.
• Show a missing consent as a visible gap, not a blank.
• Keep amendments linked to the rows they replace.

Los Angeles software company or a rights product

Off-the-shelf rights tools handle music, clips and clearances well. A custom layer is for what they do not model, such as your own use rows. Our custom software versus off-the-shelf guide and our software consulting services page cover the choice. Software development in Los Angeles splits the same way: buy the product, build the layer.

Hiring is the other path. A software developer in Los Angeles on staff can maintain the layer, and the salary table on our app development company in Los Angeles page shows what that costs.

Software development companies in Los Angeles and the rights question

Here is a test for any software development company in Los Angeles you are weighing: give each firm the same invented deal memo and ask it to write the use rows. The firm that asks which project, medium, territory and term are missing has understood the problem.

Custom software development in Los Angeles for a rights desk is mostly data modeling, so ask for the tables before the screens. Web application development services Los Angeles teams buy for a rights desk belong on our web portal development page. Web app development services Los Angeles firms ask for are scoped on the same web portal page.

What goes on the deal memo card?

An invented memo has a project, a performer, a fixed date, a list of uses and a signature line. Each of them maps to a row above.

Related services and guides

Pages that sit beside this one:

• Software development company
• Web portal development
• Custom software vs off the shelf
• Software consulting services
• App development company in Los Angeles
• Video production in Los Angeles
• PR firms in Los Angeles

Frequently asked questions