AI and rights of publicity in the UK

Rights of publicity safeguard an individual’s name, image, likeness, voice, and other unique personal attributes from unauthorised commercial use. Our previous article examined the UK’s position on rights of publicity, noting the absence of any standalone “image right” or “personality right” under English law. Since then, there have been several developments in the UK legal landscape, indicating a growing willingness on the part of the UK government to consider additional protections against AI-generated “deepfakes”.

The existing legal framework

English law does not recognise a standalone right to control the commercial use of one’s name, image, likeness, or voice. Instead, individuals must rely on a fragmented set of potential causes of action, none of which was designed to specifically address publicity rights.

Passing off

Passing off remains the closest equivalent to a right of publicity in the UK and the principal tool for individuals to challenge the unauthorised commercial use of their name, image, or likeness, particularly in false endorsement cases. However, this is not an easy claim to bring and requires the individual to establish goodwill (i.e., that they have an existing commercial reputation), a misrepresentation (typically, that they have endorsed or are connected with the relevant goods or services), and resulting damage. Passing off therefore does not confer a general right to control someone’s image, and offers little protection where a replica is used in a way that implies no endorsement, or where the individual has no commercial reputation to protect. 

Other potential protections

Depending on the circumstances, individuals may also be able to rely on:

• Copyright: This protects works in which an individual’s image or voice features, such as photographs, films, and sound recordings, but not the individual’s visual or vocal characteristics as such. Even where a digital replica does infringe copyright in an underlying work, the individual is often not the copyright owner.
• Data protection: An individual’s image and voice are personal data. Data protection rights may provide some leverage against the training or deployment of a replica. However, they do not provide a clear-cut basis for preventing its creation or commercial exploitation.
• Registered trademarks: Well-known individuals may register their names or other signs, although this offers limited protection for broader aspects of their image or likeness.
• Advertising regulation: The CAP Code generally requires marketers to obtain permission before featuring identifiable individuals in marketing communications, and the ASA can act against ads that falsely imply endorsement.

The government’s consultation on copyright and AI (December 2024)

On 17 December 2024, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Intellectual Property Office, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport jointly launched a public consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence (the Consultation), inviting views on how UK copyright law should apply to AI training. While primarily concerned with text and data mining, digital replicas and personality rights were also addressed within the Consultation. 

The government acknowledged that the rapid development and use of AI tools has increased both the volume and quality of AI-generated digital replicas, and noted that the training of AI tools on individuals’ voices and appearances can further exacerbate this problem. It acknowledged that some in the creative industries had proposed the introduction of “personality rights” to offer additional protection to individuals whose likeness or voice is used in digital replicas, and invited views on whether the current framework remains fit for purpose. However, no specific proposals for reform were advanced, with the government emphasising that the introduction of a new type of personality right would be a significant step requiring careful consideration.

The government’s report on copyright and AI (March 2026)

Following the Consultation, the government published its statutory report on copyright and artificial intelligence on 18 March 2026 (the Report). Considerably more detailed than the original Consultation, the Report devotes an entire section to digital replicas, representing the most developed governmental analysis to date on the inadequacies of existing UK law in this area.

The Report acknowledges that current legal protections do not cover all situations in which a digital replica is made without consent. The Report notes that responses to the Consultation clearly demonstrated that this is an area of growing concern, particularly in the creative industries, and that stakeholders broadly support enhanced protections. It concludes that the government plans to explore a range of options for addressing the risks, including the potential introduction of a new personality or digital replica right, while balancing the need to support legitimate innovation and the benefits of the technology.

House of Lords committee report (March 2026)

Separately from the government’s consultation process, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee (a cross-party parliamentary select committee) conducted its own independent inquiry into AI and the creative industries. Its report, AI, copyright and the creative industries, was published shortly before the Report, on 6 March 2026. 

The committee adopted a decidedly pro-rights-holder position, recommending that the government introduce protections against unauthorised digital replicas and harmful “in the style of” AI outputs to give creators clear control over the commercial exploitation of their identity.

The government published its formal response on 15 May 2026, largely reiterating the position set out in the Report but adding further detail on immediate next steps. It confirmed that it would launch a dedicated consultation on digital replicas in summer 2026, seeking views on how to address the harms caused where an individual’s likeness is replicated without permission while continuing to protect legitimate innovation. 

At the time of writing, the digital replica consultation has not yet been published. In early September 2026, following the launch of a high-profile campaign by performers calling for statutory protection of the voice (see “Industry lobbying” below), the government restated its commitment to consult but did not give a revised timetable. The consultation will be the first opportunity for stakeholders to comment on concrete options, which the government has indicated could range from targeted protection against AI-generated digital replicas to a broader personality right.

Criminal offences targeting deepfakes

The UK has also introduced new criminal provisions addressing deepfakes, although these focus on intimate image abuse rather than the commercial misappropriation of an individual’s voice, image, or likeness.

Section 188 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (in force since January 2024) criminalises the sharing of intimate photographs or films without consent – a provision broad enough to capture AI-generated deepfakes depicting intimate content. Furthermore, section 138 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (in force since February 2026) also makes the creation of, or a request to create, intimate deepfake images without consent a criminal offence. 

Industry lobbying

Unions and industry bodies have continued to lobby for stronger protections throughout the government’s consultation process. Equity, the UK’s trade union for the performing arts and entertainment industries, has been running its “Stop AI Stealing the Show” campaign since 2022, calling for the introduction of automatic personality rights. 

In September 2025, the Trades Union Congress passed a motion moved by Equity and seconded by the Musicians’ Union, committing to lobbying the government for a regime of personality rights under which artists could better protect and license their voice, likeness, and other aspects of their personal image. The motion was also supported by the National Union of Journalists, the Artists’ Union of England, and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union.

The government has faced increased lobbying pressure in recent months. In August 2026, more than 80 performers, including Nicola Coughlan, Hugh Bonneville, and Matt Lucas, backed the “Save Our Voices Now” campaign, which calls for a statutory right for individuals to own their voice. The campaign has written an open letter to the prime minister and launched a parliamentary petition. In September 2026, Equity used the annual TUC congress to renew its call for a personality right. It argued that existing copyright and data protection laws are uncertain in their application to digital replicas and do not provide adequate protection.

Looking forward

The government’s promised consultation on digital replicas represents the most concrete step yet towards statutory reform. Although the precise form of any new rights remains uncertain, momentum is certainly gathering for statutory protections that extend beyond the existing legal frameworks.