As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly reshapes the entertainment industry, much of the public conversation has focused on copyright law, ownership disputes, trademark, and whether AI-generated works qualify for intellectual property protection. Producers, studios, and digital media companies have become increasingly focused on protecting their development materials, scripts, visual assets, and creative workflows from what many in the industry now describe as “dirty data”: AI-generated output that may compromise copyright protection, weaken chain-of-title integrity, or create uncertainty surrounding ownership rights and commercial exploitation. While those issues remain critically important, another legal battleground is emerging: the right of publicity.
Publicity rights primarily concern the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s name, image, likeness, or persona in advertising and merchandising. Traditionally, these disputes involved obvious misuse in an unauthorized endorsement campaign, a counterfeit product advertisement, or the commercial exploitation of a recognizable identity without consent. Today, artificial intelligence has fundamentally expanded both the scope of that risk. Modern generative AI systems can now replicate voices, facial expressions, performance styles, digital mannerisms, speech cadence, and visual identities with astonishing precision. The technology has evolved beyond merely copying someone’s image; it can now simulate human identity itself. If copyright law protects creative work, publicity rights increasingly protect the human identity behind that work, the performer’s voice, likeness, image, signature style, and recognizable persona. That development creates enormous legal, ethical, and commercial implications for performers, creators, studios, advertisers, and technology companies alike.
Why are publicity rights treated differently from traditional intellectual property rights? Because copyright and trademark law protect what you create, while publicity rights protect who you are. Copyright may protect a screenplay, a film, or a song. Trademark law may protect a brand or logo. Those rights can often be assigned, licensed, or fully transferred to a corporation. Publicity rights, however, protect an individual’s identity, including their name, voice, likeness, image, and recognizable persona. A studio may own the copyright to an actor’s prior performances, yet still lack the legal right to generate new synthetic performances or digital replicas of that actor without proper authorization. AI has increasingly blurred the line between ownership of creative content and ownership of human identity, forcing courts, lawmakers, and the entertainment industry to confront both issues.
Entertainment contracts have historically relied upon expansive “all media now known or hereafter devised” clauses intended to capture future technological uses of a performer’s name, image, and likeness. In the AI era, however, those broad boilerplate provisions are no longer sufficient to support the creation or commercial exploitation of synthetic performances or digital replicas. California’s recently enacted digital replica legislation, including Labor Code Section 927, requires disclosure and informed consent standards surrounding certain contractual provisions involving the use of AI-generated replicas of a performer’s voice or likeness to perform tasks the individual would have otherwise done in person. If you try to bury a digital replica rights grab inside generic release language drafted for a pre-AI industry, your contract may face enforceability challenges under evolving California law and public policy protections.
If a production utilizes AI systems to imitate celebrity voices, vocal characteristics, recognizable likenesses, or other protected elements associated with a performer’s identity without a permission-based clearance process, the resulting exposure may jeopardize insurance coverage, financing approvals, distribution opportunities, and ultimately the commercial viability of the project itself. Deficient chain-of-title documentation surrounding synthetic assets can quickly become a deal-breaking issue during E&O review, financing diligence, or distribution clearance. Any use of AI-generated voices, likenesses, performances, or other synthetic identity-related content should be carefully evaluated for compliance with applicable publicity-rights laws, contractual authorization requirements, labor obligations, and relevant intellectual property considerations before distribution, publication, monetization, or commercial exploitation occurs.
Production companies should consider digital replica rights with the same scrutiny reserved for literary rights, music clearances, or intellectual property acquisitions. Synthetic likeness rights should be addressed through separate, specific contractual provisions implementing provisions detailing the exact, restricted scope of the synthetic use, ensuring the performer is represented by qualified counsel or a collective bargaining agreement. Contracting parties should consider clearly defining the precise scope of any authorized synthetic use, with transparent disclosure provisions, and ensuring compliance with applicable union, guild, and legal representation requirements required by law or collective bargaining obligations. The failure to address these issues proactively can result in litigation exposure, reputational harm, insurance complications, distribution delays, and significant financial liability.
DISCLAIMER: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Davari Law. Laws vary widely by jurisdiction and continue to evolve rapidly in the area of artificial intelligence, copyright, and digital media regulation. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances before relying upon any information contained herein. You acknowledge and agree that this information is not intended as a solicitation and you use this information at your own risk and we’re not liable under any circumstances, at any time in any way or for any damages of any kind or under any theory, resulting from this information, or your use of such information or any reliance on or access to this information, including but not limited to liability or indemnity or damages under tort or contract or any damages caused by viruses in this file, despite giving notice.