Generative AI can now edit, translate, imitate and even recreate a person’s face, body and voice with remarkable realism. Many publicity releases, talent agreements and influencer contracts – especially forms drafted before the current wave of AI tools – do not clearly state what a company may do with a person’s likeness once AI enters the workflow. This gap matters.
Legislatures, regulators, platforms, unions and courts are moving quickly, and companies that rely on broad legacy “edit,” “reuse” or “derivative works” language may face avoidable legal, commercial and reputational risks. If your business photographs, films, records or otherwise uses individuals in marketing, product, training, educational or promotional content, now is a good time to refresh the contract stack.
The Legal Landscape Is Shifting Fast
Companies face a rapidly evolving patchwork of laws, regulatory guidance and litigation that is redefining what consent is required for AI-generated uses.
- California: Labor Code section 927 makes certain contract provisions unenforceable if they allow a “digital replica” to be used in place of an individual’s work without reasonably specific disclosure of the intended use and representation by counsel or a union. Further, AB 1836 amended Civil Code section 3344.1 to create liability for unauthorized digital replicas of deceased personalities. For companies using California talent or California-facing campaigns, generic consent language is no longer a safe default if AI use is contemplated.
- Federal NO FAKES Act: On June 18, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal right allowing individuals to control AI-generated digital replicas of their voice and visual likeness, with liability for producing or distributing unauthorized replicas. It now heads to the full Senate. Even before enactment, the bill signals where federal policy is heading and may shape market expectations in talent and licensing negotiations.
- New York: A first-in-the-nation law (effective June 9, 2026) requires conspicuous disclosure when advertising features an AI-generated “synthetic performer,” and applies to any ad reaching New York consumers regardless of where the advertiser is based, with civil penalties for violations. New York also expanded post-mortem publicity rights to cover digital replicas. National campaigns should assume that state disclosure rules apply even when production, agencies, and talent are located elsewhere.
- Litigation Is Here: Creators, talent and influencers are already suing over AI-generated uses of their images, voices, performances and personas. Models may challenge AI-generated images that depict poses or conduct they never performed, and broad legacy “edit and reuse” clauses may not withstand scrutiny when the edit is really a synthetic alteration or recreation. Courts are beginning to test where ordinary post-production ends and a new, separately consented AI use begins.
- FTC Scrutiny: The FTC’s Endorsement Guides require clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections, and those principles apply to AI-generated endorsements, virtual personas and synthetic testimonial content. AI-generated fake reviews and testimonials also draw enforcement attention. For brands, the issue is not only whether a likeness was licensed, but whether consumers could be misled about who is speaking, endorsing or reviewing.
Which Agreements to Review
Because AI-related likeness rights can arise throughout the content creation process, organizations should review every agreement that grants, licenses or governs rights to an individual’s image, voice or persona.
- Publicity and model releases, including forms used for employees, customers, event attendees and anyone your company photographs, films or records.
- Talent, spokesperson, celebrity and brand ambassador agreements, especially where content may be localized, repurposed or extended across campaigns.
- Influencer and content creator agreements, including short-form video, affiliate, livestream and creator marketplace arrangements.
- Vendor, agency and production agreements, including who is responsible for AI permissions, tool selection, substantiation, platform labels, approvals and disclosures.
What to Do: Key Provisions to Add or Update
A proactive contract review now can help reduce legal uncertainty, clarify ownership and approval rights, and better position your organization for future AI-enabled content uses.
- Definitions: Define “digital replica,” “synthetic performer,” “AI use” and similar terms with enough precision that business teams can apply them. Distinguish routine editing, retouching, cropping, dubbing, translation and accessibility enhancements from material alteration, synthetic performance, training use and full digital recreation. The definitions should track the actual AI workflows the company uses or permits vendors to use.
- Scope of Consent: Treat distinct issues separately: (a) AI editing of real content, including retouching, enhancement, localization, dubbing and translation; and (b) creating or using a digital replica, synthetic recreation or digital twin, including content the person did not actually perform. Enumerate permitted uses, media, territory, platforms, terms, exclusivity and whether the consent covers future products or campaigns. Vague grants risk being unenforceable, and also create avoidable friction when business teams later try to reuse content.
- Compensation and Approval Rights: Price AI and digital-replica rights separately from ordinary content fees. Consider pre-publication approval rights, especially for AI-altered or AI-generated content that changes appearance, voice, message, product claims or context. Approval workflows can add processes that may seem burdensome, but which often prevent larger disputes later.
- Restrictions and Third-Party Exposure: Prohibit feeding a person’s content, likeness, voice or biometric identifiers into third-party or open-source AI tools, or using that material to train or fine-tune AI models without express consent. Require vendors and agencies to follow the same restrictions, maintain records of approved tools and delete replicas, model inputs and outputs at termination or upon request where feasible.
- Reputational and Moral Rights: Build in guardrails against false, misleading, defamatory, sexually explicit, politically charged, discriminatory or out-of-character depictions, as well as false attribution of statements, endorsements or product claims. Talent and creators will often ask for these protections, but brands benefit too – clear guardrails reduce approval disputes and help protect consumer trust.
- Disclosures: Require compliance with FTC endorsement rules, applicable platform AI-labeling policies and state disclosure laws such as New York’s synthetic-performer requirement. Assign responsibility for making, approving and retaining disclosures, and make sure the disclosure obligation survives handoffs among the brand, agency, production company, influencer platform and media buyer.
- Minors: Child talent and the releases covering them raise special considerations, especially when AI rights could extend well beyond the original shoot. Add safeguards where the subject is a minor, such as court approval of the contract where required, Coogan trust compliance, shorter terms, parental consent and approval procedures, and revocation or renegotiation rights at the age of majority or earlier.
Key Takeaway: Build AI Likeness Governance Into Your Contracting Process
The practical takeaway is straightforward – do not treat AI likeness rights as an afterthought buried in a standard release.
- For startups, this is an opportunity to build scalable forms before growth, fundraising or acquisition diligence exposes gaps.
- For larger companies, it is a chance to align legal, marketing, product, privacy, procurement and vendor management teams around a consistent approval process.
The companies best positioned for the next wave of AI-enabled content will be the ones that can say, with confidence, what rights they have, what uses are off limits and who approved the content before it went live.
If you have questions about how likeness rules may affect your contracts, please contact Chiara Portner or Alexandra Bass, or your regular Lathrop GPM attorney.