Performers earn every time a paying brand generates with their likeness, rather than once when the likeness is created. There's no fixed rate card, and the amount for each render is shown in the performer's own dashboard. On your side, casting a real human creator adds a small flat fee — AI actors and an actor you made from your own photo are free to cast.
Payment per use rather than payment at creation is the whole structural difference, and it changes two things nobody expects: what a re-roll costs, and what a long series costs.
Why per render rather than per project?
Because a likeness isn't a file you buy. It's a thing that keeps being used.
Paying once at creation treats a performer's face as a deliverable — you commission it, you own the output, and the transaction ends. Paying per render treats it as something licensed, where each use is a separate event the performer has an interest in.
The second is the structure that matches how the material actually behaves. A generated likeness doesn't get used once. It gets used every time somebody generates with it, potentially for years, across projects the performer never saw.
Payment for creation buys a file. Payment per use licenses a likeness. Only one of those matches what's happening.
It's also the harder structure to administer, which is why platforms don't always choose it. Per-render accounting means tracking every generation against every performer indefinitely rather than closing a transaction and moving on.
What does the performer actually get?
Four things, and the last two are the ones performers ask about.
- Earnings on every render
- A performer earns each time a paying brand generates with their likeness. Not once at onboarding, and not per project — per render.
- No fixed rate card
- There's no published per-render figure. The amount for each render is shown in the performer's own dashboard, so it's visible to them rather than negotiated.
- Accrued earnings never expire
- Money already earned stays earned. It doesn't lapse if a performer stops submitting, withdraws their likeness, or leaves the platform.
- Rate changes apply only to future use
- If a rate changes, it affects renders from that point forward. Nothing is recalculated retroactively in either direction.
Where this falls short. No fixed rate card cuts both ways. It means the platform can adjust without renegotiating every licence, and it means a performer can't compare a published figure against another platform's. What they can see is their own dashboard, which is a different kind of transparency.
What does it cost you?
A small flat fee on top of the generation, and the flat part matters.
Casting a real human creator adds a small flat fee. AI actors and an actor you made from your own photo don't — those are free to cast, and you pay only for the generation itself.
Because it's flat rather than proportional, it lands differently depending on the clip. On a thirty-second high-resolution generation it's a small share of the total. On a four-second draft it's a larger one. Which means the fee is felt most during iteration and least on the keeper render — the opposite of how most people assume it works.
The cost shows before you render, so none of this needs estimating.
The fee is flat, so it costs you most while you're iterating and least on the final render.
That has a workflow consequence worth acting on. If a shot needs six attempts to get right, six flat fees have been paid on drafts nobody will see.
The obvious mitigation is to work out the shot with a generated actor and only switch to the licensed one once the framing, blocking and read are settled. Whether that's worth the extra step depends on how much iterating you do.
There's also a plan floor: real human creators sit above the entry plan, so the route isn't available at the lowest tier at all.
What does this mean for a series?
A cost curve rather than a cost, and it compounds in the direction you'd expect.
Every episode that features the licensed lead pays the fee again. At episode five that's negligible. At episode fifty it's a line item, and at episode seventy it's a decision you'd have wanted to model at the start.
None of which argues against casting a licensed performer. It argues for deciding early which roles need one — the lead delivering to camera in client work, the spokesperson, anything a reviewer will scrutinise — and generating the rest.
Where this falls short. We haven't measured what that curve amounts to across a series and we're not going to publish an estimate. The shape is knowable today: per render, flat, repeated per episode. The magnitude isn't, without running it.
How does the performer get paid?
Through a separate verification step, which is worth knowing because it's a second check rather than the same one.
Identity is verified at onboarding through a liveness check and a face-match. A separate know-your-customer check runs at payout. So being verified to appear and being verified to be paid are two distinct processes.
Performers are accepted globally rather than from a single market, which means payout and tax handling vary by where the performer is.
What happens if a performer withdraws?
Earnings survive. Generation stops.
A performer can stop new use of their likeness at any time, effective promptly. Content already generated and delivered stays valid, because the licence on it is perpetual. What ends is the ability to generate more.
Accrued earnings aren't affected — money already earned stays earned regardless of withdrawal.
On death, heirs may ask that new use stops, with unpaid earnings passing to the estate. So the earning right survives the performer in the same way the licence on delivered content does.
How does this compare to how it's usually done?
Two structures exist in this category and they produce different incentives.
A buyout pays once for a likeness and ends the relationship. It's simpler, cheaper at volume, and gives the performer no interest in how often their face is used.
Per-render payment costs more at volume and gives the performer a continuing stake. It also makes withdrawal a real option rather than a theoretical one, because a performer who keeps earning has a reason to stay and a mechanism to leave.
Which of those is better depends on which side of it you're on. What's worth knowing is that the second is what Hexcoded's licence does, and that it's the reason the withdrawal provision exists at all.
Payment terms described here are as published in Hexcoded's actor licence, current as of the publication date. There is no published per-render rate. Performer tax and payout handling vary by jurisdiction. Hexcoded's actor licence is governed by the laws of India, with jurisdiction in Gurugram, Haryana. Nothing here is legal, tax or financial advice.
- Performers earn per render, not per project. Each generation is a separate paid event
- There's no fixed rate card. The amount per render is shown in the performer's own dashboard
- Accrued earnings never expire, and rate changes apply only to future use
- On your side it's a small flat fee. AI actors and one made from your own photo are free to cast
- Flat means it costs you most while iterating and least on the keeper render
- Work out the shot with a generated actor, then switch to the licensed one for the final
- A series is a cost curve rather than a cost. Decide early which roles actually need a licensed face
- Withdrawal stops new generation. Accrued earnings and delivered content both survive it
Licensed human creators earn every time a paying brand generates with their likeness, rather than once when the likeness is created. There's no fixed rate card, and the amount for each render is shown in the performer's own dashboard.
A small flat fee on top of the generation. AI actors and an actor you made from your own photo are free to cast. Because the fee is flat rather than proportional, it's a larger share of a short draft than of a long keeper render.
No. Money already earned stays earned, and it isn't affected if a performer stops submitting, withdraws their likeness or leaves the platform. Rate changes apply only to future use rather than retroactively.
The amount per render is shown in the performer's own dashboard rather than published as a rate card. That means the platform can adjust without renegotiating every licence, and a performer sees their own figures rather than a comparable public one.
Every episode featuring the licensed lead pays the fee again, so it's a cost curve rather than a cost. That argues for deciding early which roles need a licensed face — the lead delivering to camera, anything a reviewer scrutinises — and generating the rest.
Accrued earnings survive — money already earned stays earned. What stops is new generation with that likeness. Content already generated and delivered stays valid, because the licence on it is perpetual. On death, unpaid earnings pass to the estate.
Paid every render, not once
Human creators on Hexcoded earn each time a paying brand generates with their likeness, with the amount visible in their own dashboard and accrued earnings that never expire. On your side it's a small flat fee.
Read the actor licenceMore on characters, consent and reusable elements in Elements.