Do Celebrities Have Rights Against AI Video Content?
Dear Will & AiME,
I manage social media for a celebrity client. Recently, I came across a video that’s clearly taken from one of her YouTube appearances. The transcript was apparently fed into an AI system to generate commentary, and her image was reused to promote a digital product—something she had no part in. The creator says it’s “transformative” and legal. Is that true? Do we have any legal recourse here?
— Social Coordinator in Los Angeles
Short answer 💡
Celebrities generally have strong legal rights against unauthorized AI-generated content that uses their likeness, voice, or identity for commercial purposes. Claims may arise under publicity, copyright, or trademark law—especially where the use suggests endorsement or profit.
Dear Social Coordinator in Los Angeles,
Your question touches on a mix of publicity rights, copyright, trademark, and fair use boundaries, especially as generative AI makes it easier to remix, mimic, and monetize someone’s identity without involvement. Let’s break it down:
1. Right of Publicity: Control Over Identity
Most U.S. states recognize a “right of publicity,” which protects an individual’s name, image, voice, and likeness from being used for commercial gain without consent. This right is especially strong for public figures.
If a third party:
Uses your client’s face, voice, or persona,
To sell or promote a product,
Without a license or endorsement,
…they may be violating her publicity rights. It’s not just about copying; it’s about profiting from identity. States like California, New York, and Tennessee have robust protections.
2. Trademark & Brand Confusion
If the video includes or implies affiliation with a celebrity-owned brand name, product line, or even uses catchphrases or stylized text associated with her identity, it may trigger trademark infringement or false endorsement claims, even without a registered mark.
The legal hook here isn’t about copying. It's whether consumers are misled into believing there’s an affiliation, sponsorship, or approval. That confusion opens the door to liability under the Lanham Act or state unfair competition laws.
3. Copyright Issues & Derivative Use
Was the original video professionally produced? Owned by your client or her team? If so, reusing the content, even as a transcript or audio remix, could be an unauthorized derivative work. Plus, if the new video reuses any of the content from your client’s own content, that could be an infringement.
AI-generated outputs that rely heavily on this content (e.g., rephrased narration, stylized summaries) may not escape scrutiny just because they’re “different.” If the underlying expression was protected and reused without permission, there’s a potential claim.
4. Fair Use Isn’t a Free Pass
Some creators lean on “transformative” use as a shield, but courts look at:
Purpose (Is it commercial or commentary?)
Amount taken (Was it a small clip or the entire video?)
Effect on the market (Does it replace the original or exploit her name to gain views/sales?)
If the AI content is being sold or monetized, or if the celebrity’s identity is being used as a marketing draw, the “fair use” argument weakens fast.
5. AI & Deepfake Considerations
If the video manipulates her voice, face, or likeness to make her appear to say or endorse something she didn’t, that edges into synthetic media risks. Several states now have laws regulating deepfakes, especially in commercial, political, or adult content.
Even if it’s not deceptive, the very use of AI to simulate persona may raise both ethical and legal red flags, particularly if it implies consent that never existed.
Practical Steps for Managing the Risk
Send a takedown under copyright or publicity claims (many platforms comply with such requests).
Issue a trademark notice if branded elements are misused or confused.
Document the misuse: screenshots, URLs, promotional language, and monetization pathways all help build a record.
Evaluate whether to act or monitor: Sometimes it’s worth enforcing rights; other times, the better approach may be to license proactively, educate creators, or build your own narrative to steer use.
AI is expanding what’s possible in content creation, but that doesn’t override the legal rights of public figures. A celebrity’s likeness, voice, and brand are valuable assets. When others build commercial tools, content, or products on top of those assets without consent, they’re entering legally risky terrain.
Businesses using celebrity likenesses, whether through AI or editing, should treat these assets like IP, not open source.
— Will & AiME
Three Takeaways:
Celebrity identity can’t be commercially reused without permission. AI tools don’t change the law.
Fair use is narrow when content is used for endorsement, sales, or brand-building.
Businesses should treat likeness, voice, and persona as licensed assets, not free inputs.
