A Campaign, three levels of consent, and one rule for which one wins.
Most photo consent starts broad: can we use photos from this event for this purpose? Ansikt keeps that path, but adds a finer one. Subjects can see the images afterwards and make a more specific decision when a blanket yes was too broad.
Every decision sits inside a Campaign.
Once you name a Campaign, every decision your team makes is scoped to it: the Purposes, the images, the consent records, and the end date. That is the boundary your DPO can audit later.
Your image archive is the photos you already hold or will add — your DAM, your Drive, your SharePoint. A Campaign is a named project that connects a set of those images with the legal basis, the Purposes, the consent records, and an end date. One archive, many Campaigns over time.
A Campaign brings together, in one place: a legal basis, a Purposes list ("dementia-awareness campaign", "annual report", "internal training pack"), the photos that belong to it, the consent documents that cover them, the QR code for subject consent where needed, and an end date.
Subjects consent to Purposes. If a Purpose is missing for a known subject, asking them is one click away in Ansikt.
You attach consent documents with the same picker you use for photos. Pick a whole folder, a few subfolders, or specific files — from one or more Sources your org has already connected. The two can pull from different Sources — photos in SharePoint, consents in an HR-only Drive — that is fine. Originals stay in your systems; Ansikt keeps the working view and audit log.
Some things are set once for the whole organisation, not per Campaign. Your Source connectors are set up once for the org — a Campaign points to part of a Source, it does not create a new one. A known subject can appear in three Campaigns as the same person, with three independent sets of decisions on file.
Same record. Different scope.
The three levels are mostly for the subject. They can give broad consent for the organisation, consent to the Purposes in one Campaign, or decide image by image after seeing what was actually taken. For your team, that means flexibility: request a narrow decision for one image and one Purpose without rebuilding the whole consent record.
Everything from this org.
A standing decision that covers a broad slice — "all match-day photos", "any internal use", "everything for the duration of my membership." Membership consent, employee onboarding, school enrolment. Common in systems you may already run.
Scope · the org, or a named subsetA bounded set, for these Purposes.
One Campaign — a shoot, an event, an archive review — covering one or more Purposes. The subject signs via QR, on a paper form, in a PDF batch, or through another record you already hold. This is what most consent work looks like.
Scope · one CampaignOne photo. One decision.
The subject opens their portal, sees the photos they appear in, and approves or denies each one. The level you use when a subject wants control image by image. Most will not; the ones who do get a clear safety valve.
Scope · one imageCampaign-level consent is the normal starting point: QR flows, paper forms and PDF batches usually say yes or no for a defined purpose and set of photos. Per-photo consent is the correction layer. It lets the subject make a more informed decision after they have seen the image.
More specific wins.
When an image is reviewed for a Purpose, Ansikt looks for the most specific decision that applies to each known subject in the image.
- 1Photo decision. Has this subject decided on this exact image for this Purpose? If yes, use that answer.
- 2Campaign decision. If there is no photo decision, has the subject decided for this Campaign and Purpose? If yes, use that answer.
- 3Organisation decision. If there is no Campaign decision, is there a broader organisation-level decision for this Purpose? If yes, use that answer.
- 4No decision. If nothing covers the case, the image needs review before use. If it is served through the URL Proxy, the affected appearance can be blurred on request; originals in your systems are not touched.
Channels enter at publication. Consent decides whether the image can be used for the Purpose. When your editor publishes, they choose the Channel and the audit log records it on the publish event.
A subject consents to a Campaign, then denies one photo later.
- At the venue
A subject scans the Campaign QR code and consents to the dementia-awareness Campaign. Campaign-level yes, for the Purposes you defined.
- A week later
The subject opens the portal, scrolls their appearances in this Campaign, and denies one specific image — the close-up where they think they look unwell.
- At publish time
Your editor reviews the Campaign's image set for the microsite. For this subject, in every image except one, the Campaign-level yes applies. For that one image, the one-photo deny wins. In a group photo served through the URL Proxy, the image can still be used while that subject's face is blurred.
Three levels of subject control.
The subject adjusts consent at whichever level matters to them. The portal shows where they stand across every Campaign your org has them in; the same precedence rule applies when an image is reviewed for use.
Pull everything.
The subject revokes every appearance this organisation has of them, across every Campaign. The broadest option. Maps to the whole-relationship level.
One Campaign only.
"The dementia Campaign — no. The annual report Campaign — fine." Independent decisions per Campaign. Maps to the Campaign level.
Just this one photo.
"I am fine with the dementia Campaign, just not this photo." Per-image overrides per-Campaign overrides per-org. Maps to the image level.
When your organisation runs more than one Campaign and the subject appears in several, the portal pulls them into a single view — every Campaign in one place, the Purposes the subject has decided on, and the expiry on each one. Channels can be shown for transparency when an image is published. They are not consent dimensions; if a publication context makes the subject uncomfortable, the lever they pull is the Purpose or Campaign decision.
The cross-Campaign portal view is what makes operator-attached paper and PDF consents easier to inspect. A subject can see what is on file and dispute it.
For paper and PDF, you confirm what they cover.
Most of the consent you already hold sits in paper binders, PDF batches, or a digital register. Pulling per-Purpose decisions out of unstructured form text is hard, lossy, and an honesty risk. Here is the trade we make instead.
When you attach a paper or PDF consent to a Campaign, you are confirming that the Campaign's Purposes match what the original consent granted. Ansikt records that confirmation. The system does not read the consent text.
You create an archive Campaign with a known list of Purposes. You attach the PDFs — individual files, folder batches, whatever shape they arrive in. Ansikt reads the parts it can: the subject's name and email, the date, and the expiry. The decisions come from the Campaign's Purposes, not from the PDF text.
This is more honest than implying the system extracts decisions from unstructured language. It names the responsibility — yours — and traces it. Two things make it safe.
- The audit log records the confirmation. Who confirmed which document for which Campaign, and when. Your DPO can read it; a regulator can read it; you can read it.
- The subject portal lets the subject dispute. The cross-Campaign view shows what is on file. If the subject disagrees with a Campaign-level decision, they can pull the consent at Campaign level or take it up with your DPO.
You still take responsibility for the old record. Ansikt makes that responsibility visible and traceable instead of pretending the consent text was understood automatically.
Decisions are on file. Now Publish can enforce them for images served through the proxy. Allowed appearances show, withdrawn appearances blur on request, originals in your systems never change.