Using someone’s likeness without permission is legal in some situations and actionable in many others, and the dividing line is almost always the purpose. Commercial uses like advertising, merchandise, and implied endorsements nearly always require consent. News reporting, commentary, education, and genuinely creative or transformative artwork usually do not. About half the states have right-of-publicity statutes; the rest handle these disputes through court-developed rules, and the federal Lanham Act adds a nationwide claim against uses that falsely suggest endorsement.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S. Code 1125 – False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden
Commercial Uses Almost Always Need Consent
The overwhelming majority of right-of-publicity lawsuits involve commercial exploitation: a recognizable face, name, or persona attached to an ad, a product, or a promotional campaign without permission. Courts focus on whether the user gained a financial benefit from associating the product with the person’s identity. If they did, and there was no consent, that is usually enough for liability.
“Likeness” is read broadly. A photograph or video is the obvious case, but courts also protect a distinctive voice, a signature look, and even a persona evoked without any direct image. In White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., an ad featuring a robot in a gown and wig posed next to a game-show letter board was held to infringe Vanna White’s rights even though her actual image never appeared, because the ad was designed to make audiences think of her.2Justia. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 The practical takeaway is that you do not need to reproduce someone’s photograph to face a claim. Anything that unmistakably evokes a specific person in a commercial context can trigger one.
The Supreme Court laid the foundation for these claims in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., recognizing that unauthorized commercial use of a performer’s act threatens the economic value the performer would otherwise be able to charge for.3LII / Legal Information Institute. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 That economic logic still drives most modern decisions.
Uses That Usually Don’t Require Permission
News, Public Interest, and Commentary
The First Amendment gives broad room to use someone’s likeness in news reporting, public-interest commentary, and educational content. A newspaper does not need permission to run a photo of a public figure alongside a story about them, and a documentary filmmaker does not need a signed release from every person who appears on screen in a newsworthy context. In Time, Inc. v. Hill, the Supreme Court held that even erroneous statements about matters of public interest are protected unless the publisher knew they were false or acted recklessly.4Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374
This protection has edges. Courts ask whether the use is genuinely tied to a matter of public concern. If a publication is really using a celebrity photo to sell magazines rather than to illustrate a story, the commercial motive can override the newsworthiness defense. Sensationalized or fabricated connections between the person and the content also weaken it.
Incidental Appearances
Not every recognizable face in commercial material creates liability. If a person appears briefly or insignificantly inside a larger work, courts often find no violation. A three-to-four-second appearance in a documentary has been treated as too fleeting to support a claim. The question is whether the user got a meaningful commercial advantage from that person’s identity. A crowd shot that happens to include a recognizable face is very different from a marketing campaign built around one.
Transformative and Artistic Works
Creative works sit between pure commercial exploitation and fully protected speech. The test most courts use asks whether the artist transformed the person’s likeness into something new and expressive, or simply copied it to trade on their fame.
Skilled but literal portraits of the Three Stooges sold on T-shirts were not transformative enough in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., because the marketability came entirely from the celebrities’ recognizability rather than from any original contribution.5Stanford Law School – Robert Crown Law Library. Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. By contrast, in Winter v. DC Comics, comic-book characters clearly modeled on musicians Johnny and Edgar Winter but depicted as fictional half-human, half-worm creatures inside an original storyline were sufficiently transformative to defeat the claim.6Stanford Law School – Robert Crown Law Library. Winter v. DC Comics Video games have gone the other way when they reproduce a real athlete’s physical attributes, jersey number, and playing style to replicate their real-world identity, as in Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc.7Justia. Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc.
The pattern is consistent. The more a work looks like a portrait built to exploit recognition, the weaker its defense. The more it uses a likeness as raw material for a genuinely different expression, the stronger the defense.
Parody Aimed at the Person
Parody fits within transformative use, but only when it actually comments on or criticizes the person depicted. A work that mocks the person has a stronger claim than one that uses their face to draw attention to an unrelated joke. Courts borrow this line from copyright fair-use analysis, where Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. distinguished parody, which targets the original, from satire, which uses the original to comment on something else and needs a stronger justification for the borrowing.8Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 A caricature attacking a politician’s policies is a much safer bet than that same caricature on unrelated merchandise.
AI-Generated Images, Voices, and Deepfakes
Generating a synthetic image, video, or voice does not sidestep the rules. If anything, the rules are tightening. As of early 2026, most states have enacted some form of legislation targeting AI-generated synthetic media, with the strongest protections aimed at non-consensual intimate imagery and political deepfakes. One state has specifically made a musician’s voice a protected attribute and prohibited unauthorized AI replication of an artist’s voice and likeness. Other states have added civil remedies and registration requirements for AI-generated replicas of a person’s identity.
At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law in May 2025, creating a nationwide framework for addressing non-consensual intimate images, including AI-generated ones, with platform compliance deadlines in 2026. The NO FAKES Act has been introduced in Congress to create broader federal protection against unauthorized digital replicas of any person’s voice or visual likeness, with liability extending to platforms that knowingly host such replicas.9U.S. Congress. S.1367 – NO FAKES Act of 2025 If enacted, it would largely displace the current patchwork of state laws while preserving recognized First Amendment protections. For now, the practical rule is that producing a realistic digital version of a real person without permission carries growing legal risk, and the software origin of the image or voice does not insulate you from liability.
Using a Deceased Person’s Likeness
Death does not automatically end the right. In roughly two dozen states, the right of publicity survives and passes to the person’s heirs or estate. Duration varies widely, from as little as ten years after death in some states to as long as a century in others. Which state’s rules apply usually depends on where the person was living when they died. If you plan to use a deceased public figure’s likeness commercially, assume an estate or successor controls those rights until you confirm otherwise. Estates that hold valuable intellectual property tend to enforce it aggressively, and the penalties mirror those for unauthorized use of a living person’s identity.
How to Get Consent That Actually Holds Up
The cleanest way to avoid a dispute is documented permission before use.
Written Releases
A written release or licensing agreement is the standard. A well-drafted release names the specific uses covered, how long permission lasts, what compensation (if any) the person receives, and whether the license is exclusive. Vague or overly broad releases cause trouble on both sides: the person granting permission may later argue they did not understand the scope, and the person using the likeness may find the release does not cover a new campaign, medium, or product line. Be specific.
Implied Consent Is Narrow
Implied consent can arise when someone voluntarily participates in a public event where media coverage is expected, such as a sporting event, concert, or press conference. It is narrow and risky to lean on. Courts look at whether the person had a reasonable expectation of how their image would be used. Attending a public event is not agreement to appear in an unrelated advertisement. When in doubt, get it in writing.
Minors
A child cannot legally consent to the commercial use of their image, so a parent or legal guardian must sign on their behalf. Even so, some states let minors disaffirm contracts made for them once they reach adulthood, meaning a release a parent signed years ago may not hold up permanently. If a campaign is built around a minor’s likeness, the release needs to be drafted with these risks in mind.
Social Media Doesn’t Grant You Rights
Uploading a photo or video to a social media platform typically grants the platform a broad license to use the content, usually non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, and worldwide. Courts have upheld these terms, and a platform can repurpose user content for its own promotional purposes without additional permission. Deleting the content generally terminates the ongoing license, but any use that already occurred is not reversible. One thing that license does not do is give other users any rights: posting someone else’s likeness to your own account is not a defense to a right-of-publicity claim.
If Someone Used Your Likeness Without Permission
State Right-of-Publicity and Misappropriation Claims
A right-of-publicity claim requires showing that someone used your identity without consent in a way that gave them a commercial benefit. In statutory states, the elements and damages are set out in the statute. In common-law states, courts apply precedent. Damages typically track the commercial value the defendant extracted from your identity, which depends on your public recognition and how widely the unauthorized use was distributed. Many states also recognize invasion of privacy through misappropriation of identity, which focuses on the defendant’s benefit from using your persona and can support recovery for emotional distress rather than only lost commercial value.
Federal Lanham Act Claims
When the unauthorized use creates a false impression that you endorsed or are affiliated with a product, the Lanham Act supplies a federal claim that can be brought regardless of state law.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S. Code 1125 – False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden In exceptional cases, courts may award attorney’s fees to the winning party, and willful violations involving counterfeit marks can produce treble damages.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S. Code 1117 – Recovery for Violation of Rights
Deadlines to File
Every state sets a filing deadline for these claims. Most fall in the one-to-three-year range, running from the date of the unauthorized use. Some states apply a discovery rule that starts the clock when you learned or reasonably should have learned about the use. If you suspect your likeness has been used without permission, talk to an attorney promptly rather than assuming the deadline is generous.