The right of publicity is a person's legal right to control commercial use of their identity: name, photograph, likeness, voice, signature and other recognisable traits. It exists because a familiar face sells products, and the law decided that the value belongs to the person, not to whichever advertiser uses it first. In the United States it is a creature of state law, so its scope changes at each state line. Every celebrity endorsement, influencer contract and stock photo release is, in part, a licence of this right.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has turned an old doctrine into one of advertising's most contested questions, because a convincing voice or face can now be produced without the person ever entering a studio.

What the right protects

A plaintiff typically shows that the defendant used their identity, without consent, for commercial advantage, and that harm followed. "Identity" is read broadly: courts have extended it to imitated voices and to props that merely evoke a person.

Two statutes anchor most litigation. California Civil Code section 3344, enacted in 1971, bars knowing use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness in advertising or products without consent, awarding the greater of $750 or actual damages, plus attributable profits. California also recognises a broader common-law claim. New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, dating from 1903, prohibit using a living person's name, portrait, picture or voice "for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade" without written consent. New York has no common-law right, so the statute is the whole of it.

Elsewhere coverage is uneven. One study found 35 states recognised the right as of 2020, and 25 have statutes, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Protection after death lasts 20 years in Virginia, 70 in California, 100 in Oklahoma and potentially indefinitely in Tennessee, according to the same analysis.

How it works in advertising

Most of the work happens in contracts. Brands and agencies clear every identifiable person in a creative: models sign releases, celebrities sign endorsement agreements, and stock libraries sell images with model releases attached. Each licence is bounded by media, territory, product category and duration. When the term lapses, continued use becomes unlicensed use.

Union agreements add a layer. Under the 2025 Commercials Contracts between SAG-AFTRA and the Joint Policy Committee (JPC), which bargains for advertisers and agencies, producers must give 48 hours' notice before creating or using a performer's digital replica and obtain consent in writing, according to law firm DLA Piper. A replica performance replacing in-person work carries 1.5 times the scale session fee. The deal was reached on April 11, 2025.

User-generated content is the newest flashpoint. On October 9, 2026, a North Carolina creator sued supplement seller True Nutra over at least 12 paid Meta ads that allegedly reused her TikTok videos to imply an endorsement, pairing copyright with a common-law misappropriation of likeness claim.

From flour posters to human cannonballs

The doctrine began as privacy. In 1902 New York's highest court refused to help Abigail Roberson, whose portrait appeared on 25,000 posters advertising Franklin Mills flour; the backlash produced sections 50 and 51 the following year.

The commercial version came in 1953. In Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that baseball players held a "right of publicity" in their photographs that they could license exclusively, and Judge Jerome Frank gave the right its name. The Supreme Court has heard one case on it: in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting, decided 5-4 on June 28, 1977, the First Amendment did not protect a station that broadcast Hugo Zacchini's entire 15-second human cannonball act.

California shaped the advertising law. After its supreme court ruled in 1979 that Bela Lugosi's rights died with him, the legislature created a post-mortem right in 1985, later extended to 70 years. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co. in 1988, the Ninth Circuit held that Ford and agency Young & Rubicam appropriated Bette Midler's identity by hiring a backup singer to imitate her voice; a jury later awarded $400,000. In White v. Samsung in 1992, the same court let Vanna White sue over an ad featuring a robot in a blonde wig beside a letter board, prompting Judge Alex Kozinski to warn that the right had grown too broad.

Voices, replicas and AI

Tennessee moved first on cloning. The Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, signed on March 21, 2024 and effective July 1, 2024, added voice, real or simulated, to a 1984 statute and extended liability to anyone distributing technology whose primary purpose is reproducing an identifiable person's voice or likeness without authorisation, according to law firm Manatt.

California followed on September 17, 2024. AB 2602 voids contract clauses letting a digital replica replace a performer's in-person work where the use is not reasonably specifically described and the performer lacked a lawyer or union. AB 1836 extended the post-mortem statute to digital replicas, with damages of at least $10,000. Both took effect on January 1, 2025.

New York required disclosure instead. A law signed on December 11, 2025 obliges advertisers to label synthetic performers, AI-generated people not recognisable as any real individual, with fines of $1,000 and then $5,000 per violation from June 9, 2026. AI likenesses of real people remain under the civil rights statute. In Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo in July 2025, a federal judge allowed voice actors' section 50-51 claims against an AI voice company to proceed while dismissing most trademark and copyright claims, holding that copyright protects fixed recordings, not the qualities of a voice, according to law firm Skadden.

Europe and the United Kingdom

Europe has no single right of publicity. France protects image under Article 9 of its Civil Code and Germany through personality rights, which a Berlin court applied on August 20, 2025 to an AI clone of an advertising voice actor, awarding a notional licence fee of 2,000 euros per video and ruling that an AI provider's licence does not replace the person's consent. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an identifiable image or voice is personal data; Italy's regulator found AI-dubbed clips of journalist Enrico Mentana breached the GDPR in July 2026.

England has no image right. Celebrities rely on passing off, which needs goodwill and a false suggestion of endorsement: racing driver Eddie Irvine won against Talksport in 2002 over a doctored photo, and Rihanna's case against Topshop owner Arcadia was upheld on appeal in 2015.

The EU's AI Act relies on transparency. Article 50, applicable since August 2, 2026, requires deployers to disclose deepfakes, and commercial ads do not benefit from the satire and art exemption, with fines of up to 3% of turnover.

Why it matters for marketing

Identity theft now runs through ad auctions. Celebrity deepfakes promoting investment scams are the most visible abuse, documented in PPC Land's explainer on deepfakes. Google banned ads impersonating public figures from March 2024, and Meta sued scam advertisers over celeb-bait on February 26, 2026, saying its protection programme covers more than 500,000 public figures.

Legitimate synthetic talent depends on licences. TikTok's Symphony stock avatars, launched in 2024, are created from real actors and licensed for commercial use, and YouTube extended likeness detection to every creator aged 18 and over in May 2026.

Limits and disputes

Free expression is the persistent tension. Courts protect news, parody and art, but the tests differ: California asks whether a work is "transformative", and Kozinski's dissent argued that overbroad publicity rights impoverish the public domain. Fragmentation is the second problem. A national campaign faces dozens of standards, durations and damages rules.

Platform liability is unsettled. A Frankfurt court refused Meta the hosting exemption under the Digital Services Act on September 16, 2026 over deepfake scam ads using a finance publisher's co-founder, threatening fines of up to 250,000 euros per future breach; the ruling is not final. Workarounds are contested too: Giorgia Meloni filed a four-second recording of her voice as an EU sound trademark on October 5, 2026, though commentators doubt it would give exclusive rights over the voice itself.

Not the same as

  • Right of privacy. Privacy protects dignity and seclusion against intrusion or disclosure; publicity protects the commercial value of identity, and is often assignable.
  • False endorsement. Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act targets uses likely to confuse consumers about endorsement. It usually requires a recognisable persona; many state publicity laws protect anyone.
  • Copyright. Copyright protects fixed works such as a photograph or recording, owned by their creator; publicity protects the person depicted. One image can raise both.
  • Trademark. A registered mark protects a source identifier for specific goods, not a person's identity at large.

Recent developments

The federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591), reintroduced on May 20, 2026, would create a licensable federal right in voice and visual likeness with a notice-and-takedown system, preempting future state digital replica laws but not existing ones. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced it unanimously on June 18, 2026. On September 30, 2026, Senator Ted Cruz objected to Senator Marsha Blackburn's request to pass it by unanimous consent, arguing that satire and political content could be swept in. The bill is stalled until at least November, according to the Daily Journal. YouTube, which had voiced support for the bill, added four dispute categories for likeness claims on August 19, 2026.

Europe is legislating faster. Denmark tabled bill L 49 on October 8, 2026, amending its copyright act to bar publishing realistic imitations of a person's appearance or voice without consent, protected for 50 years after death, from January 1, 2027.

Timeline

  • 1890: Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis publish "The Right to Privacy" in the Harvard Law Review.
  • 1902: New York Court of Appeals rejects Abigail Roberson's claim over a flour advertisement.
  • 1903: New York enacts Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51.
  • 1953: Second Circuit names the "right of publicity" in Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum.
  • 1971: California enacts Civil Code section 3344.
  • June 28, 1977: Supreme Court decides Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting.
  • 1979: California Supreme Court holds in Lugosi v. Universal Pictures that publicity rights do not descend.
  • 1984: Tennessee passes the Personal Rights Protection Act.
  • 1985: California creates a post-mortem publicity right.
  • 1988: Ninth Circuit decides Midler v. Ford Motor Co.
  • 1992: Ninth Circuit decides White v. Samsung.
  • 1999: Germany's Federal Court of Justice recognises commercial personality rights in the Marlene Dietrich case.
  • 2002: Eddie Irvine wins a passing off claim against Talksport in England.
  • 2015: Court of Appeal upholds Rihanna's passing off win against Arcadia.
  • March 21, 2024: Tennessee signs the ELVIS Act, effective July 1, 2024.
  • September 17, 2024: California signs AB 2602 and AB 1836, effective January 1, 2025.
  • April 11, 2025: SAG-AFTRA and the JPC agree commercials contracts with digital replica terms.
  • July 2025: Federal court lets voice actors' New York claims proceed in Lehrman & Sage v. Lovo.
  • August 20, 2025: Berlin Regional Court rules an AI voice clone infringed personality rights.
  • December 11, 2025: New York signs its synthetic performer disclosure law.
  • May 20, 2026: NO FAKES Act of 2026 introduced in Congress.
  • June 9, 2026: New York synthetic performer disclosure takes effect.
  • June 18, 2026: Senate Judiciary Committee advances the NO FAKES Act.
  • August 2, 2026: EU AI Act Article 50 transparency obligations apply.
  • September 16, 2026: Frankfurt Regional Court denies Meta the DSA hosting exemption for deepfake ads.
  • September 30, 2026: Senator Ted Cruz blocks unanimous consent for the NO FAKES Act.
  • October 8, 2026: Denmark tables its deepfake likeness bill.
  • October 9, 2026: Creator Amber Jordan Holston sues True Nutra in North Carolina.

Summary

Who. Individuals whose identity has commercial value, from celebrities to creators and voice actors; the brands, agencies and AI developers that use identities; platforms that carry the ads; and state legislatures, courts and regulators.

What. A right to control commercial use of name, image, likeness, voice and other identifying traits, enforced mostly through state statutes and common law in the US and through image, personality, data protection and passing off rules elsewhere.

When. New York legislated in 1903, Haelan Laboratories named the right in 1953 and Zacchini reached the Supreme Court in 1977. AI-specific laws arrived from 2024, and the federal NO FAKES Act stalled in the Senate on September 30, 2026.

Where. Primarily in US states such as California, New York and Tennessee, with parallel rules in Germany, France, Denmark, Italy and the UK, and transparency duties under the EU AI Act.

Why. Endorsements turn identity into money. Generative AI makes faces and voices cheap to copy, so the right decides who can license a likeness, who must disclose synthetic talent and who pays when an ad uses someone without consent.