Trustworthy AI Marketplaces: Integrating Content Provenance, Model Accountability, and Automated Licensing for Generative Commerce Systems
Keywords:
AI marketplace, generative commerce, content provenance, model accountability, automated licensing, compliance-by-design, trustworthiness, socio-technical infrastructureAbstract
The rapid proliferation of generative artificial intelligence in commercial ecosystems has given rise to a new class of digital platforms: AI marketplaces that facilitate the creation, distribution, and consumption of AI-generated content and model services. However, these marketplaces face critical trust deficits stemming from unresolved issues in content provenance, model accountability, and automated licensing. This paper presents a comprehensive systems-level framework for designing trustworthy AI marketplaces that integrate content provenance mechanisms, model accountability verification, and automated licensing protocols into a coherent socio-technical architecture. We examine the structural trade-offs between decentralised credentialing and centralised enforcement, between transparency and privacy, and between automated compliance and human oversight. Drawing on standards such as C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity) and W3C ODRL (Open Digital Rights Language), we propose a layered governance model that embeds provenance traceability directly into generative workflows, employs path-level safety interventions for large foundation models, and implements micro-licensing systems that operate at the granularity of individual generated outputs. We further analyse the role of compliance-by-design infrastructure in multi-tenant environments, the challenges of backdoor defence in split learning contexts, and the integration of static and dynamic analysis tools for vulnerability prioritisation in microservice architectures. Through cross-domain comparisons with finance, healthcare, and media, we evaluate sustainability, fairness, and policy implications. The paper concludes with a roadmap for future research and deployment, emphasising the need for interoperable standards, incentive alignment, and regulatory sandboxing to realise the full potential of generative commerce systems.
References
1. Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. (2023). C2PA Technical Specification v1.0. https://c2pa.org/specifications/
2. Iannella, R., & Villalón, M. P. (Eds.). (2018). ODRL Information Model 2.2. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/
3. Shi, C., Li, S., Lu, W., Wu, W., Wang, C., Cheng, Z., ... & Chua, T. S. (2026). TraceRouter: Robust Safety for Large Foundation Models via Path-Level Intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21900.
4. Shokri, R., Stronati, M., Song, C., & Shmatikov, V. (2017). Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 3-18). IEEE.
5. Zhou, D. (2026). AI-Driven Hybrid SAST–DAST–SCA–IAST Framework for Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization in Microservice Architectures.
6. Carlini, N., Liu, C., Erlingsson, Ú., Kos, J., & Song, D. (2019). The secret sharer: Evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 267-284). USENIX Association. 7.Tramer, F., Zhang, F., Juels, A., Reiter, M. K., & Ristenpart, T. (2016). Stealing machine learning models via prediction APIs. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 601-618). USENIX Association.
8. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92.
9. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., ... & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 220-229). ACM.
10. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). "Why should I trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1135-1144). ACM.
11. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608.
12. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., ... & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33-44). ACM.
13. Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. MIT Press.
14. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610-623). ACM.
15. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). COM/2021/206 final.
16. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
17. Papernot, N., McDaniel, P., Goodfellow, I., Jha, S., Celik, Z. B., & Swami, A. (2017). Practical black-box attacks against machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 506-519). ACM.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Engineering and Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
